Yup. They all think they are the first to give you this “incredible” perspective.
-
Features
Fine-Tuning Argument vs Argument From Miracles
- Thread starter Brian63
- Start date
Yup. They all think they are the first to give you this “incredible” perspective.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Was Jesus an anti-Roman insurrectionist leader?
The Jesus-miracle-debunker has to find an alternative explanation for the historical Jesus, because the evidence is that it's the miracle acts which made Jesus noteworthy, and this has to be rejected at all cost. So it's necessary to find an alternate narrative to that of the miracle acts we see in the accounts, which are the only evidence. So in desperation some debunkers present the alternative theory that Jesus was an insurrectionist leader against Rome, though there is no evidence of this in the written record. The only argument for the insurrectionist theory is the dogmatic insistence that he could not have performed the miracle acts -- so what's the best alternative explanation? Except as an alternative theory to the miracles there is no evidence for the insurrectionist theory.
So, which of you is the liar? He says there are "no writings to be found about" Paul's Jesus, because they were destroyed by "zealous Christians" selling a different version of Jesus, while you're saying "someone" made sure there was nothing left but Paul's Christianity.
So let's have a shoot-out duel between the two of you, and whichever of you gets blown away by the other is the liar, while the one left standing is the Real McCoy debunker.
Until we resolve which of you has the story straight and which one is the liar, there's no point in taking seriously your paranoid conspiracy theories about one faction of Christians suppressing another's version of Jesus.
Anyone knowledgeable about the 1st-century NT documents can see that there were many different Christologies or explanations of the Christ or the Jesus person in history, and there's not one single Absolute-ordained certified politically-correct Narrative handed-down-from-on-high which pre-empts all the others.
1st-century rivalries between Christian/Jewish factions
-- No one school vanquished the others.
It's obvious there was conflict between Paul and James, and between others, or other schools, or early church communities, and they even condemned each other and accused each other of apostasy. Similar to the Qumran Jews calling themselves the "Sons of Light" and branding the Jewish priests in Jerusalem the "Sons of Darkness." The new Christian communities simply carried on this tradition among Jewish sects of condemning rival sects as enemies of the Truth. It's delusional to imagine that any one Christian faction prevailed and censored all the writings of the opposing factions.
There were pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions, militant and anti-militant factions, apocalyptic teachers, Essenes and other dissidents, Rabbinic Pharisee teachers, Ebionites, gnostic teachers, and different Greek Alexandrian factions, each promoting Jesus according to its particular symbols and rhetoric. None prevailed over the others and vanquished them, sending its book-burning squads around the countryside to purge all the others.
But there were OTHER insurrectionist movements led by other "Bin Ladens" who also were martyred. Why is it only in this case that there are multiple accounts written about the "Bin Laden" (Jesus) naming him as the Jewish Messiah and saying he performed miracles and resurrected after being martyred? Why is it that in this case the leader was recognized as "Messiah" AFTER he was condemned and executed, whereas in all the other cases the defeat of the leader also put an end to his "Messiah" status?
This one had to be more than just another anti-Roman insurrectionist leader who got crushed. The others we know of were more famous/notorious than this one (during their lives) but then were forgotten after being stamped out. This one had less political impact than the others, at the time, but became famous after being crushed. So, why did the one with no military triumphs, and the least resembling a victorious Messiah, end up being the one with long-term recognition as "Messiah" and even Savior and Son of God? and even being adopted by Greek Gnostics and other non-Jews claiming him as their Hero or God or Logos and publishing Gospels and Epistles to deify him according to their visions of what a Real-McCoy God or Messiah ought to be?
Why did only this one insurrectionist martyr gain so much recognition, while all the others became relegated to only a footnote, or were forgotten entirely?
The best explanation so far is that this one performed miracle acts and resurrected from the dead, which the others did not.
It's not clear that Barabbas was "convicted" of anything. He had been arrested and accused, but nothing in the text says he had a "trial" or was "convicted."
Even if Jesus committed no crime, he could just as easily be condemned to death as being a rallying point for the criminals and rebels attaching themselves to him. As a rallying point he posed the same threat to the state as a real insurrectionist leader. By removing this symbolic figure serving as a rallying point, especially torturing and humiliating him, they drove home the message that rebellion is not tolerated. This accomplishes more than simply punishing the actual rebellious criminals. Crushing the one adopted by them, and inspiring or unifying them, puts down the uprising better than slaughtering a dozen rank-and-file violent militants who commit real crimes.
Yes it could have if these militants saw Jesus as a potential leader of their cause, which appears to be the case, hoping he would defeat the Romans, as they unify around him and rally to fight in the battle. If this hope was inspiring the rebels, it makes sense for Pilate to condemn Jesus to death, in order to eliminate what was inspiring them. Even though Jesus himself did not commit violence or lead a violent revolt.
Barabbas was not necessarily "convicted" of anything, even if he was arrested for leading a riot and killing someone. Most criminals/rebels were not first put on trial and "convicted" as a prerequisite to being executed. You must not confuse what we know today as a "trial" of an accused with what Romans did in the 1st century. The ones put on "trial" and convicted or acquitted were upper-class, not common criminals and rebels.
It's more likely that the ones killed in the riot were Jews and not Roman citizens or Roman soldiers. If Roman soldiers showed up, they are the ones who did the killing, not the rioters or militants.
Wrong: Probably no Romans were murdered. And "to appease a crowd of Jews" is a very likely scenario in the context of Jewish factions at the time. It's a good possibility that there was a faction of "Jews" (not ALL Jews) who hated Jesus and wanted him dead. This faction might have been present at the "trial" and clamored for him to be crucified.
Which Jews wanted Jesus crucified, and why? Here's a presentation by Essene scholar Dr. Barbara Thiering -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvQj2CCr6ZU -- who believes Jesus was a character in the Dead Sea Scrolls who was called the "Wicked Priest" while the "Teacher of Righteousness" was John the Baptist. The best part begins at about one hour in. The part about Jesus and his interaction with the Essenes is at 1:03 - 1:05, including that they wanted him to be crucified for his apostasy.
_________________________________ 1:00:00 _________________
Thiering believes the Qumran sect turned against Jesus because he rejected their rigid teachings about observing the ritual observances, and that they wanted him to be crucified.
She's on the fringe to identify the Dead Sea Scroll characters with Jesus and John the Baptist, but Thiering confirms how Jews at this time were divided into several opposing factions so hateful toward each other that they would demand extreme punishment and even torture to be inflicted onto their Jewish rival factions.
Thiering goes off the charts with some of her abstract interpretations of scripture, turning everything into an allegory (or "pesher" teaching), where the literal meaning is set aside and an abstract symbol put in its place. But otherwise her scholarly approach is reasonable, giving a likely scenario of how the Qumran community interacted with Jesus and John the Baptist (though not her identification of them as actual characters in the Scrolls, which date much earlier by most accounts), and how this dissident faction might have turned against Jesus.
So it is a realistic possibility that a faction of militant Jews had turned against Jesus and demanded his execution, and their clamor could have prompted Pilate to give the death sentence, to placate them. And Roman Soldiers present would not have seen it any differently. The Romans were diplomatic and utilitarian in their decisions, not emotional. Whatever puts down the melée and restores order, with the least bloodshed or disruption, is the prudent course. The scene described in the Gospel account, of the Romans giving in to a mob of militant Jews, is a realistic depiction of Roman practice, assuming there was such a clamor for Jesus to be crucified, i.e., from a militant Jewish faction like that of Qumran.
Jesus connection to zealots, Qumran, anti-Roman militants
Theories about Jesus being an anti-Roman rebel must take into account the Qumran community and possible relation of Jesus and John the Baptist to the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you go through some of the many documentaries/videos on this, you'll find there is virtually nothing in the scrolls, as in all the pre-Christian literature, to lay the foundation for the Jesus miracle stories we find in the Gospels. These miracle acts of Jesus are not found in the earlier literature. There is one possible Scroll text predicting something like miracles to be done by the future Messiah, but otherwise there is nothing in them pointing toward a future miracle-worker resembling anything like we see in Jesus in the Gospels. Also there is no narrative of any miracle acts in the Scrolls, e.g., by the Teacher of Righteousness or any other character.
The Jesus who appears in the Gospels pops up in history virtually without any precedent. And yet there are in the Scrolls many parallels to Jesus, or to NT teachings, in the Gospels and Paul epistles. If there was any culture of miracle claims preceding Jesus, to set the stage for the 1st-century Gospel accounts, we should see something of it in the Scrolls, and yet there is nothing there.
Here's another video, about the Essenes, showing New Testament parallels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZofqcEdLIRA
This goes on and on listing similarities of Jesus to the Teacher of Righteousness, almost as though the Gospel accounts lifted the passages out of the Scrolls, copying and pasting them into the 1st-century documents. But with the long laundry list of parallels, there is nothing there about any miracle acts by the famous Teacher. This omission is conspicuous. Why is there so much in common, and yet no miracle acts pointing to the later Jesus in the Gospels?
This video was chosen at random from among dozens of videos on the Dead Sea Scrolls. All of them show this same pattern, of many parallels between Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness, or other Scroll texts, and yet no miracle narratives in the Scrolls, and virtually nothing about miracle events at all. Miracles are nonexistent in the Scrolls, and yet they stand out conspicuously in the Gospel accounts. ("nonexistent in the Scrolls" meaning in the non-biblical writings)
Here's another video about the Scrolls, recommended to me by Learner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2jG0v-gAwM
This video also shows much of the parallel language of the Gospel accounts (Jesus and John the Baptist) to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. But there is total avoidance of anything about the Jesus miracles, which have virtually no correlation to anything in the Scrolls.
Unlike the previous video, this one condemns the Essenes as wicked pagans with no connection to Qumran. There are widely differing interpretations of the Scrolls, pro- and anti-Jewish, pro- and anti-Christian -- but no matter what the ideology of the video producer, all of them show many elements in the Gospels as derived from the earlier Qumran sect and yet none can explain where the Jesus miracle stories originated.
The earlier Thiering documentary plays down the miracles in the Gospels as something intended for children, not to be taken seriously and viewed with contempt. The miracles of Jesus are treated with disdain, rejected a priori as fiction, regardless of the evidence, because it is simply a dogmatic premise that miracles cannot happen, and this premise is really the only argument for why the accounts must be fiction.
So no one can explain the Jesus miracle stories, how they originated, if they are fiction, regardless what their theory is about the Scrolls. Why did writers in the 1st century suddenly make up miracle stories for a recent Messiah cult figure when this had never been done before, in any culture, among Jews or Greeks or Egyptians or anyone? Why did the miracle storytellers all promote the same hero figure instead of each choosing or creating a different figure according to each one's imagination creating his own myth? Why did none of them choose John the Baptist or James the Just or other popular hero to be the miracle-worker?
There were many successful religions, widely recognized, many ancient gods emerging over time, with their miracles evolving over many centuries of mythologizing, without instant miracle-workers popping up. So, why suddenly in the mid-1st century does an instant miracle-worker pop up out of nowhere, with nothing like it earlier serving as a precedent?
(Lists of ancient miracle-workers parallel to Jesus in the Gospels are fraudulent, as evidenced by total lack of any ancient text describing them and their alleged miracle acts. E.g., the frequent lists from debunker Richard Carrier are never accompanied by any ancient text reporting the claimed miracle acts. This fraudulent practice, repeated over and over, showing no documentation other than quotes from the modern debunker-guru, is itself further evidence that there are no parallel instant miracle-workers in the ancient literature.)
If you go through many other videos on the Scrolls, you'll see that there is nothing about miracle claims or miracle-workers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though much of Christianity can be described as derived from ideas in the Scrolls, there is no hint of Jesus the miracle-worker to be found, no forerunner, no previous example of such a figure. This pops up in the Gospels with virtually nothing earlier to set the stage for it.
(The example of Elijah/Elisha might be cited as having some similarity, but it's interesting how this is almost completely ignored in the Scrolls, and also how these two prophets are completely ignored in Jewish literature after their appearance in I-II Kings 600 years earlier. It's not until AFTER Jesus in the Gospels that any Jews show an interest in them.)
Why did the Romans crucify Jesus but set Barabbas free?
From the Roman point of view, including that of the soldiers, the exchange of a criminal for someone being used as a Kingpin makes sense as likely to produce the best result, in terms of ending the rebellious activity long-term. One petty fanatic who murdered someone is less important than the Hero figure seen as the inspiration for militant rebels. Even if the symbolic figure is not guilty of preaching violence, he is still seen as the greater evil, serving as a rallying point for some of the militants who are ineffective individually but can be turned into a dangerous mob when they have a unifying symbol to rally around.
Jesus = unwilling Kingpin figure
Releasing a single fanatic rioter, even if he killed someone, is a small price to pay, as a trade in return for getting the Kingpin figure who became a rallying point which ignited the rioters, or could ignite them in the future. This is not "treason" by a cowardly Roman official but cold calculation aimed at the greater long-term good from the viewpoint of the Established Authority putting the public order highest on the list of priorities, i.e., higher than "justice" and other abstract values.
Even if the rioters and militants were mindless, the Roman soldiers were not and would not react impulsively to a trade calculated to restore calm by removing whatever unifying element might otherwise spark the troublemakers.
The "trial" account may have flaws in it, as to the accuracy, but the explanation for it has to be one which assumes that some "trial" like this took place. Your explanation for it cannot be simply that the whole story is ludicrous and could not have happened. Something did happen, resembling our account in the Synoptics, and we have to piece it together into a scenario which makes sense, separating fact from fiction, and not tossing out the whole story as hocum.
No, it's the story of a movement which attracted some terrorists into it, who saw it as a possible vehicle for their insurrectionist aims. It had to be something other than just another terrorist rebel movement, because there were many rebel movements, and none of them started from someone who was promptly executed before achieving any military success and yet became a resurrected miracle "Messiah" or Savior and God of a new fast-growing religion.
No, not a leader against Rome, but someone who stood out in a way which attracted many followers including rebels who hoped he would lead their violent uprising against Rome, and when he failed to do this, they turned against him.
Had he really been a "Jewish leader against Rome" leading an insurrection, we should see some indication of it in the written record, which we do not. Rather, there are indications that some of the militants gathered around him in hopes that he'd be their leader. That's a much better explanation. Whatever was noteworthy about him that attracted attention has to be something indicated in the written record we have. The rebel-leader interpretation is artificially imposed onto the text, against anything to be found there. There's enough "paper trail" left for us that we should find something in it somewhere describing Jesus as anti-Roman and urging a violent uprising, if in fact he did that.
No, nothing was disseminated in the written accounts saying he promoted political revolution against Rome. The disputes presented show conflicts toward Jewish factions or toward the Jewish Establishment, but no rebel crusade against Rome led by Jesus.
Even if a pro-Roman bias is noticed, this doesn't mean Jesus was an anti-Roman insurrectionist. Rather, it shows there were many elements who opposed the anti-Roman crusade and didn't want Jesus turned into a political militant, because they knew he was not. So they made sure to communicate that in the account.
Whatever spin you put on it, you cannot find anything in the written record identifying Jesus as a leader of anti-Roman rebels. But you can show that some rebels were attracted to him, thinking he might become their leader, but he did not, and we see indications that they turned against him.
Conceivably (without the "sent in" rhetoric), in the sense that the original insurrectionist movement had attached itself to Jesus as its possible leader, but then fell apart when he did not fulfill their hopes and was arrested and executed. Paul may have had a pro-Roman bias, but wasn't any "agent" of Rome. And there's no evidence that Jesus ever led any such insurrectionist movement, even if some of those rebels joined his followers.
No, it all makes sense that the "soldiers" scattered even though Jesus himself was not a rebel leader. Rather, the militant ones among his followers saw him hopefully as a violent rebel leader, and both the Jewish Establishment and the Roman authorities saw him as this rallying point for the rebels, which put all the disciples in danger of being arrested on suspicion of insurrection, even though most of them were not militants. So they all scattered, to be safe. It all makes sense, even though he himself was not leading the violent rebellion.
It's not clear what "the movement" means, even if your theory is correct. Except in the sense that Paul saw a Death-and-Resurrection event attracting more and more believers, and he decided to build a movement -- maybe his own version of it -- based on this Death-and-Resurrection belief which was spreading. He even became a believer in it himself.
Without the dead and risen Christ as the central figure, there was no "movement" to rebuild having anything to do with him. There was plenty of rebellion already going on regardless of any "Jesus martyr" figure. If Paul was this hypothetical Roman agent trying to "rebuild" a rebel movement, then whatever this "insurrectionist movement" was, it had nothing to do with the Jesus person, who was just another crucified loser rebel, among hundreds. Unless this one was different because he had performed miracles and had risen from the dead -- then there could be something to "rebuild" -- but without Jesus having any distinction to set him apart from the hundreds of other executed rebels, why would Paul or anyone else want to "rebuild" anything using this forgettable Jesus character who did nothing important?
What "movement"? You're not identifying what "movement" you're talking about. There were many rebel characters and plots and outbursts here and there. Why are you obsessing on this one Jesus character only who was no different than a hundred (or a thousand) other rebel troublemakers running around and getting themselves killed? What special interest was there in him that would grow "bolder and bolder" when he was as little of a nobody as any of the others? If he was not the dead and risen Christ of Paul, and also the Gospel accounts, then he was nothing at all -- there's nothing there to grow or become bold other than your list of colorful adjectives.
You're losing it.
What Paul did was to connect to a new Death-and-Resurrection belief he sees spreading, starting in Jerusalem, among different groups, and he is convinced there was a real event back in 30 AD which sparked this new "movement" which is spreading aimlessly this way and that, so he feels appointed to step in and "take control" of it somehow, or direct it according to a plan and a Cosmic blueprint which he will set forth. Something like that best explains what Paul did. There's nothing in Paul showing that he's a Roman agent trying to get an anti-Roman insurrection movement under control.
You can speculate anything: Paul was really a Buddhist in disguise trying to spread Enlightenment among Jews and Greeks and Romans. In fact he was really the ghost of Zoroaster who became another Bodhisattva -- etc. You can imagine many possibilities. But there's nothing in Paul's epistles or other written accounts supporting any of these theories, including that he was an undercover Roman agent.
The whole truth may be difficult to find in the written accounts. But at least some of it has to be there. That Jesus was an anti-Roman insurrectionist and Paul a Roman agent trying to convert the Jesus rebels into patriotic Romans is totally absent from anything in the written accounts. A basic rule of interpreting the events is that the truth of what happened has to be at least partly contained in the written accounts which have come down to us. But there's not a single sentence or phrase anywhere in the accounts showing Jesus as an anti-Roman insurrectionist or Paul as a Roman agent.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
The Jesus-miracle-debunker has to find an alternative explanation for the historical Jesus, because the evidence is that it's the miracle acts which made Jesus noteworthy, and this has to be rejected at all cost. So it's necessary to find an alternate narrative to that of the miracle acts we see in the accounts, which are the only evidence. So in desperation some debunkers present the alternative theory that Jesus was an insurrectionist leader against Rome, though there is no evidence of this in the written record. The only argument for the insurrectionist theory is the dogmatic insistence that he could not have performed the miracle acts -- so what's the best alternative explanation? Except as an alternative theory to the miracles there is no evidence for the insurrectionist theory.
Whoops! You're calling atrib a liar. Which of you is the genuine Jesus-debunker here and which one the impostor? atrib said:
So, which of you is the liar? He says there are "no writings to be found about" Paul's Jesus, because they were destroyed by "zealous Christians" selling a different version of Jesus, while you're saying "someone" made sure there was nothing left but Paul's Christianity.
So let's have a shoot-out duel between the two of you, and whichever of you gets blown away by the other is the liar, while the one left standing is the Real McCoy debunker.
Until we resolve which of you has the story straight and which one is the liar, there's no point in taking seriously your paranoid conspiracy theories about one faction of Christians suppressing another's version of Jesus.
Anyone knowledgeable about the 1st-century NT documents can see that there were many different Christologies or explanations of the Christ or the Jesus person in history, and there's not one single Absolute-ordained certified politically-correct Narrative handed-down-from-on-high which pre-empts all the others.
1st-century rivalries between Christian/Jewish factions
-- No one school vanquished the others.
It's obvious there was conflict between Paul and James, and between others, or other schools, or early church communities, and they even condemned each other and accused each other of apostasy. Similar to the Qumran Jews calling themselves the "Sons of Light" and branding the Jewish priests in Jerusalem the "Sons of Darkness." The new Christian communities simply carried on this tradition among Jewish sects of condemning rival sects as enemies of the Truth. It's delusional to imagine that any one Christian faction prevailed and censored all the writings of the opposing factions.
There were pro-Roman and anti-Roman factions, militant and anti-militant factions, apocalyptic teachers, Essenes and other dissidents, Rabbinic Pharisee teachers, Ebionites, gnostic teachers, and different Greek Alexandrian factions, each promoting Jesus according to its particular symbols and rhetoric. None prevailed over the others and vanquished them, sending its book-burning squads around the countryside to purge all the others.
But there were OTHER insurrectionist movements led by other "Bin Ladens" who also were martyred. Why is it only in this case that there are multiple accounts written about the "Bin Laden" (Jesus) naming him as the Jewish Messiah and saying he performed miracles and resurrected after being martyred? Why is it that in this case the leader was recognized as "Messiah" AFTER he was condemned and executed, whereas in all the other cases the defeat of the leader also put an end to his "Messiah" status?
This one had to be more than just another anti-Roman insurrectionist leader who got crushed. The others we know of were more famous/notorious than this one (during their lives) but then were forgotten after being stamped out. This one had less political impact than the others, at the time, but became famous after being crushed. So, why did the one with no military triumphs, and the least resembling a victorious Messiah, end up being the one with long-term recognition as "Messiah" and even Savior and Son of God? and even being adopted by Greek Gnostics and other non-Jews claiming him as their Hero or God or Logos and publishing Gospels and Epistles to deify him according to their visions of what a Real-McCoy God or Messiah ought to be?
Why did only this one insurrectionist martyr gain so much recognition, while all the others became relegated to only a footnote, or were forgotten entirely?
The best explanation so far is that this one performed miracle acts and resurrected from the dead, which the others did not.
It's not clear that Barabbas was "convicted" of anything. He had been arrested and accused, but nothing in the text says he had a "trial" or was "convicted."
Even if Jesus committed no crime, he could just as easily be condemned to death as being a rallying point for the criminals and rebels attaching themselves to him. As a rallying point he posed the same threat to the state as a real insurrectionist leader. By removing this symbolic figure serving as a rallying point, especially torturing and humiliating him, they drove home the message that rebellion is not tolerated. This accomplishes more than simply punishing the actual rebellious criminals. Crushing the one adopted by them, and inspiring or unifying them, puts down the uprising better than slaughtering a dozen rank-and-file violent militants who commit real crimes.
Yes it could have if these militants saw Jesus as a potential leader of their cause, which appears to be the case, hoping he would defeat the Romans, as they unify around him and rally to fight in the battle. If this hope was inspiring the rebels, it makes sense for Pilate to condemn Jesus to death, in order to eliminate what was inspiring them. Even though Jesus himself did not commit violence or lead a violent revolt.
Barabbas was not necessarily "convicted" of anything, even if he was arrested for leading a riot and killing someone. Most criminals/rebels were not first put on trial and "convicted" as a prerequisite to being executed. You must not confuse what we know today as a "trial" of an accused with what Romans did in the 1st century. The ones put on "trial" and convicted or acquitted were upper-class, not common criminals and rebels.
It's more likely that the ones killed in the riot were Jews and not Roman citizens or Roman soldiers. If Roman soldiers showed up, they are the ones who did the killing, not the rioters or militants.
Wrong: Probably no Romans were murdered. And "to appease a crowd of Jews" is a very likely scenario in the context of Jewish factions at the time. It's a good possibility that there was a faction of "Jews" (not ALL Jews) who hated Jesus and wanted him dead. This faction might have been present at the "trial" and clamored for him to be crucified.
Which Jews wanted Jesus crucified, and why? Here's a presentation by Essene scholar Dr. Barbara Thiering -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvQj2CCr6ZU -- who believes Jesus was a character in the Dead Sea Scrolls who was called the "Wicked Priest" while the "Teacher of Righteousness" was John the Baptist. The best part begins at about one hour in. The part about Jesus and his interaction with the Essenes is at 1:03 - 1:05, including that they wanted him to be crucified for his apostasy.
_________________________________ 1:00:00 _________________
Thiering believes the Qumran sect turned against Jesus because he rejected their rigid teachings about observing the ritual observances, and that they wanted him to be crucified.
She's on the fringe to identify the Dead Sea Scroll characters with Jesus and John the Baptist, but Thiering confirms how Jews at this time were divided into several opposing factions so hateful toward each other that they would demand extreme punishment and even torture to be inflicted onto their Jewish rival factions.
Thiering goes off the charts with some of her abstract interpretations of scripture, turning everything into an allegory (or "pesher" teaching), where the literal meaning is set aside and an abstract symbol put in its place. But otherwise her scholarly approach is reasonable, giving a likely scenario of how the Qumran community interacted with Jesus and John the Baptist (though not her identification of them as actual characters in the Scrolls, which date much earlier by most accounts), and how this dissident faction might have turned against Jesus.
So it is a realistic possibility that a faction of militant Jews had turned against Jesus and demanded his execution, and their clamor could have prompted Pilate to give the death sentence, to placate them. And Roman Soldiers present would not have seen it any differently. The Romans were diplomatic and utilitarian in their decisions, not emotional. Whatever puts down the melée and restores order, with the least bloodshed or disruption, is the prudent course. The scene described in the Gospel account, of the Romans giving in to a mob of militant Jews, is a realistic depiction of Roman practice, assuming there was such a clamor for Jesus to be crucified, i.e., from a militant Jewish faction like that of Qumran.
Jesus connection to zealots, Qumran, anti-Roman militants
Theories about Jesus being an anti-Roman rebel must take into account the Qumran community and possible relation of Jesus and John the Baptist to the Dead Sea Scrolls. If you go through some of the many documentaries/videos on this, you'll find there is virtually nothing in the scrolls, as in all the pre-Christian literature, to lay the foundation for the Jesus miracle stories we find in the Gospels. These miracle acts of Jesus are not found in the earlier literature. There is one possible Scroll text predicting something like miracles to be done by the future Messiah, but otherwise there is nothing in them pointing toward a future miracle-worker resembling anything like we see in Jesus in the Gospels. Also there is no narrative of any miracle acts in the Scrolls, e.g., by the Teacher of Righteousness or any other character.
The Jesus who appears in the Gospels pops up in history virtually without any precedent. And yet there are in the Scrolls many parallels to Jesus, or to NT teachings, in the Gospels and Paul epistles. If there was any culture of miracle claims preceding Jesus, to set the stage for the 1st-century Gospel accounts, we should see something of it in the Scrolls, and yet there is nothing there.
Here's another video, about the Essenes, showing New Testament parallels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZofqcEdLIRA
This goes on and on listing similarities of Jesus to the Teacher of Righteousness, almost as though the Gospel accounts lifted the passages out of the Scrolls, copying and pasting them into the 1st-century documents. But with the long laundry list of parallels, there is nothing there about any miracle acts by the famous Teacher. This omission is conspicuous. Why is there so much in common, and yet no miracle acts pointing to the later Jesus in the Gospels?
This video was chosen at random from among dozens of videos on the Dead Sea Scrolls. All of them show this same pattern, of many parallels between Jesus and the Teacher of Righteousness, or other Scroll texts, and yet no miracle narratives in the Scrolls, and virtually nothing about miracle events at all. Miracles are nonexistent in the Scrolls, and yet they stand out conspicuously in the Gospel accounts. ("nonexistent in the Scrolls" meaning in the non-biblical writings)
Here's another video about the Scrolls, recommended to me by Learner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2jG0v-gAwM
This video also shows much of the parallel language of the Gospel accounts (Jesus and John the Baptist) to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. But there is total avoidance of anything about the Jesus miracles, which have virtually no correlation to anything in the Scrolls.
Unlike the previous video, this one condemns the Essenes as wicked pagans with no connection to Qumran. There are widely differing interpretations of the Scrolls, pro- and anti-Jewish, pro- and anti-Christian -- but no matter what the ideology of the video producer, all of them show many elements in the Gospels as derived from the earlier Qumran sect and yet none can explain where the Jesus miracle stories originated.
The earlier Thiering documentary plays down the miracles in the Gospels as something intended for children, not to be taken seriously and viewed with contempt. The miracles of Jesus are treated with disdain, rejected a priori as fiction, regardless of the evidence, because it is simply a dogmatic premise that miracles cannot happen, and this premise is really the only argument for why the accounts must be fiction.
So no one can explain the Jesus miracle stories, how they originated, if they are fiction, regardless what their theory is about the Scrolls. Why did writers in the 1st century suddenly make up miracle stories for a recent Messiah cult figure when this had never been done before, in any culture, among Jews or Greeks or Egyptians or anyone? Why did the miracle storytellers all promote the same hero figure instead of each choosing or creating a different figure according to each one's imagination creating his own myth? Why did none of them choose John the Baptist or James the Just or other popular hero to be the miracle-worker?
There were many successful religions, widely recognized, many ancient gods emerging over time, with their miracles evolving over many centuries of mythologizing, without instant miracle-workers popping up. So, why suddenly in the mid-1st century does an instant miracle-worker pop up out of nowhere, with nothing like it earlier serving as a precedent?
(Lists of ancient miracle-workers parallel to Jesus in the Gospels are fraudulent, as evidenced by total lack of any ancient text describing them and their alleged miracle acts. E.g., the frequent lists from debunker Richard Carrier are never accompanied by any ancient text reporting the claimed miracle acts. This fraudulent practice, repeated over and over, showing no documentation other than quotes from the modern debunker-guru, is itself further evidence that there are no parallel instant miracle-workers in the ancient literature.)
If you go through many other videos on the Scrolls, you'll see that there is nothing about miracle claims or miracle-workers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Though much of Christianity can be described as derived from ideas in the Scrolls, there is no hint of Jesus the miracle-worker to be found, no forerunner, no previous example of such a figure. This pops up in the Gospels with virtually nothing earlier to set the stage for it.
(The example of Elijah/Elisha might be cited as having some similarity, but it's interesting how this is almost completely ignored in the Scrolls, and also how these two prophets are completely ignored in Jewish literature after their appearance in I-II Kings 600 years earlier. It's not until AFTER Jesus in the Gospels that any Jews show an interest in them.)
Why did the Romans crucify Jesus but set Barabbas free?
From the Roman point of view, including that of the soldiers, the exchange of a criminal for someone being used as a Kingpin makes sense as likely to produce the best result, in terms of ending the rebellious activity long-term. One petty fanatic who murdered someone is less important than the Hero figure seen as the inspiration for militant rebels. Even if the symbolic figure is not guilty of preaching violence, he is still seen as the greater evil, serving as a rallying point for some of the militants who are ineffective individually but can be turned into a dangerous mob when they have a unifying symbol to rally around.
Jesus = unwilling Kingpin figure
Releasing a single fanatic rioter, even if he killed someone, is a small price to pay, as a trade in return for getting the Kingpin figure who became a rallying point which ignited the rioters, or could ignite them in the future. This is not "treason" by a cowardly Roman official but cold calculation aimed at the greater long-term good from the viewpoint of the Established Authority putting the public order highest on the list of priorities, i.e., higher than "justice" and other abstract values.
Even if the rioters and militants were mindless, the Roman soldiers were not and would not react impulsively to a trade calculated to restore calm by removing whatever unifying element might otherwise spark the troublemakers.
The "trial" account may have flaws in it, as to the accuracy, but the explanation for it has to be one which assumes that some "trial" like this took place. Your explanation for it cannot be simply that the whole story is ludicrous and could not have happened. Something did happen, resembling our account in the Synoptics, and we have to piece it together into a scenario which makes sense, separating fact from fiction, and not tossing out the whole story as hocum.
No, it's the story of a movement which attracted some terrorists into it, who saw it as a possible vehicle for their insurrectionist aims. It had to be something other than just another terrorist rebel movement, because there were many rebel movements, and none of them started from someone who was promptly executed before achieving any military success and yet became a resurrected miracle "Messiah" or Savior and God of a new fast-growing religion.
No, not a leader against Rome, but someone who stood out in a way which attracted many followers including rebels who hoped he would lead their violent uprising against Rome, and when he failed to do this, they turned against him.
Had he really been a "Jewish leader against Rome" leading an insurrection, we should see some indication of it in the written record, which we do not. Rather, there are indications that some of the militants gathered around him in hopes that he'd be their leader. That's a much better explanation. Whatever was noteworthy about him that attracted attention has to be something indicated in the written record we have. The rebel-leader interpretation is artificially imposed onto the text, against anything to be found there. There's enough "paper trail" left for us that we should find something in it somewhere describing Jesus as anti-Roman and urging a violent uprising, if in fact he did that.
No, nothing was disseminated in the written accounts saying he promoted political revolution against Rome. The disputes presented show conflicts toward Jewish factions or toward the Jewish Establishment, but no rebel crusade against Rome led by Jesus.
Even if a pro-Roman bias is noticed, this doesn't mean Jesus was an anti-Roman insurrectionist. Rather, it shows there were many elements who opposed the anti-Roman crusade and didn't want Jesus turned into a political militant, because they knew he was not. So they made sure to communicate that in the account.
Whatever spin you put on it, you cannot find anything in the written record identifying Jesus as a leader of anti-Roman rebels. But you can show that some rebels were attracted to him, thinking he might become their leader, but he did not, and we see indications that they turned against him.
Conceivably (without the "sent in" rhetoric), in the sense that the original insurrectionist movement had attached itself to Jesus as its possible leader, but then fell apart when he did not fulfill their hopes and was arrested and executed. Paul may have had a pro-Roman bias, but wasn't any "agent" of Rome. And there's no evidence that Jesus ever led any such insurrectionist movement, even if some of those rebels joined his followers.
No, it all makes sense that the "soldiers" scattered even though Jesus himself was not a rebel leader. Rather, the militant ones among his followers saw him hopefully as a violent rebel leader, and both the Jewish Establishment and the Roman authorities saw him as this rallying point for the rebels, which put all the disciples in danger of being arrested on suspicion of insurrection, even though most of them were not militants. So they all scattered, to be safe. It all makes sense, even though he himself was not leading the violent rebellion.
It's not clear what "the movement" means, even if your theory is correct. Except in the sense that Paul saw a Death-and-Resurrection event attracting more and more believers, and he decided to build a movement -- maybe his own version of it -- based on this Death-and-Resurrection belief which was spreading. He even became a believer in it himself.
Without the dead and risen Christ as the central figure, there was no "movement" to rebuild having anything to do with him. There was plenty of rebellion already going on regardless of any "Jesus martyr" figure. If Paul was this hypothetical Roman agent trying to "rebuild" a rebel movement, then whatever this "insurrectionist movement" was, it had nothing to do with the Jesus person, who was just another crucified loser rebel, among hundreds. Unless this one was different because he had performed miracles and had risen from the dead -- then there could be something to "rebuild" -- but without Jesus having any distinction to set him apart from the hundreds of other executed rebels, why would Paul or anyone else want to "rebuild" anything using this forgettable Jesus character who did nothing important?
What "movement"? You're not identifying what "movement" you're talking about. There were many rebel characters and plots and outbursts here and there. Why are you obsessing on this one Jesus character only who was no different than a hundred (or a thousand) other rebel troublemakers running around and getting themselves killed? What special interest was there in him that would grow "bolder and bolder" when he was as little of a nobody as any of the others? If he was not the dead and risen Christ of Paul, and also the Gospel accounts, then he was nothing at all -- there's nothing there to grow or become bold other than your list of colorful adjectives.
You're losing it.
What Paul did was to connect to a new Death-and-Resurrection belief he sees spreading, starting in Jerusalem, among different groups, and he is convinced there was a real event back in 30 AD which sparked this new "movement" which is spreading aimlessly this way and that, so he feels appointed to step in and "take control" of it somehow, or direct it according to a plan and a Cosmic blueprint which he will set forth. Something like that best explains what Paul did. There's nothing in Paul showing that he's a Roman agent trying to get an anti-Roman insurrection movement under control.
You can speculate anything: Paul was really a Buddhist in disguise trying to spread Enlightenment among Jews and Greeks and Romans. In fact he was really the ghost of Zoroaster who became another Bodhisattva -- etc. You can imagine many possibilities. But there's nothing in Paul's epistles or other written accounts supporting any of these theories, including that he was an undercover Roman agent.
The whole truth may be difficult to find in the written accounts. But at least some of it has to be there. That Jesus was an anti-Roman insurrectionist and Paul a Roman agent trying to convert the Jesus rebels into patriotic Romans is totally absent from anything in the written accounts. A basic rule of interpreting the events is that the truth of what happened has to be at least partly contained in the written accounts which have come down to us. But there's not a single sentence or phrase anywhere in the accounts showing Jesus as an anti-Roman insurrectionist or Paul as a Roman agent.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
No, actually, it's very easy to determine. All you need to do is remove the blatantly contradictory elements and the events we know could not have happened as described. Examples:
Contradictory: The San Hedrin determine Jesus has committed blasphemy, a capital offense. In spite of their having twice previously tried to stone him for the same crime--and being fully authorized to handle their own people in the manner they decided, including killing them--they instead conspire with their enemy (Pilate, no less) to have him kill Jesus for them, because they fear the reprisal from the festival crowd of Jews, because they love him. Two days later, however, Pilate not only betrays them by finding Jesus innocent, he also reveals the San Hedrin's hand in it to the crowd. Instead of the crowd immediately tearing the San Hedrin to shreds for their betrayal--as the San Hedrin feared they would do in the first place--they are somehow magically moved by the San Hedrin whispering to them to free Barabbas and kill Jesus. Why? And then why would Pilate do what they wanted?
Event that could not have happened: Pilate, a Roman Prefect, letting a convicted Jewish insurrectionist leader and murderer of Roman soldiers and citizens go free to appease the Jews (let alone them inexplicably murdering a man he found innocent to also appease the Jews). If Pilate had done such a thing, he would have either been murdered by his own soldiers or immediately recalled by Rome and faced execution for being a traitor. This alleged "tradition" is never mentioned in any other contemporary account, nor in any official Roman document, which it most certainly would have been. A "tradition" necessarily entails a regular such event to occur every year for several years at the very least, which would in turn would require that it be documented that a Prefect was routinely allowing the Jews to demand that he set free a murderer of Roman soldiers/citizens every year.
Now, since that could not have happened and must therefore be removed from any consideration of an actual historical account, what then do we have as to a real event? We would have Pilate ordering the arrest and trial and execution of Jesus because Jesus broke Roman law. But what law could that have been, if not sedition? Preaching love of your enemy and turning the other cheek when your enemy strikes you and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' and such is quite obviously NOT anything that would get you killed.
Apologists usually at this point try to assert the notion of having a following being sufficient, but, again, a following of carpenters and peasants all being told to love Romans and be meek and do nothing to change their lot in life, for their suffering means they are blessed in Heaven, etc., could in no way be interpreted as a threat.
Likewise the notion of having any kind of devoted following full stop. The Zealots and the Essenes were both far larger cults--openly hostile toward Rome--with people like Barrabas running their shows, so if Barabbas would not be important enough to Pilate to ensure killing, why would Jesus?
Again, the apologists would here argue that somehow the Roman Prefect just knew Jesus was god and that's why he wanted him killed, except that, to a Roman such a thought would have no meaning. He'd, at best, be a Jewish "god" and he wouldn't give two shits about a Jewish god.
At which point the apologists must again step in and say, "But he was a King" which is false. Roman's did not fear a pretend or spiritual king, they feared actual Kings; those who would form an army against them. Not a spiritual army, a REAL army. So they would then look again at what Jesus was teaching his alleged growing army and they would have heard love your neighbors and render unto Caesar and turn the other cheek....etc.etc.etc. All entirely and openly pro-Roman teachings.
So, already we see how the threads unravel.
It is. The arrest sequence alone--where Judas must inexplicably kiss Jesus in order for the soldiers to know which one he was--and the ridiculous secret meeting places and code words, etc., all betray a military order rather than a spiritual one.
Strawmen always are.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Was Jesus an anti-Roman insurrectionist leader?
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
One conjecture is as good as another. What matters is that there is a "movement" there to take control of ("usurp") somehow. And what has to be answered is: What is this "movement" he's connecting to? Why is it important? Why does he want to "usurp" it or connect to it and control it? Why does he need to "spin" a mythology of any kind for this movement?
If Jesus did the miracles and resurrected, then we have the explanation what's happening, why it matters, and what Paul is trying to "usurp" or "spin" a mythology for. But if there's no unusual person who actually resurrected, but only another charlatan Messiah type who had led a rebel gang that was crushed, then what is it that Paul is wasting his time on here?
Your Paul scenario has to explain what's special about this "movement" he's trying to "usurp" and give this special attention to. Why would he care about it? or want to "usurp" it? If it's just another failed rebel gang whose leader got killed, which had happened hundreds of times previously, why would Paul care about it? Why was this "movement" any more important than the hundreds of others which he could try to "usurp"?
Whatever he claimed, he's not "THE one" claiming it, as though he originated the claim. He's only reiterating what others already claimed. He didn't invent this claim. Though it's not clear that he "claims it was the Jews" -- there's uncertainty whether he did claim this.
It was typical for Jews to blame other Jews for whatever went wrong and to not blame the Romans. The militants and Qumran dissidents etc. unleashed 90% of their hate against rival Jewish factions. But this did not make them Roman "agents," even though Rome probably gained from the Jews squabbling among each other and blaming other Jews instead of Romans.
He blames "the Jews" only in I Thessalonians 2:14-15 (assuming Paul is the real author of this passage), but also "the rulers of this age" (I Corinthians 2:8), which has to include Pilate and the Romans. When "the Jews" are referred to this way, it always means some faction or factions of Jews, not all Jews.
These ideas about "the Jews" did not originate with Paul, whether he said such things or not. If he wrote the Thessalonians text, he was only reflecting some ideas already circulating among early Christ-believers. If he said it, he didn't mean all Jews, but the militant factions, or the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem.
There were no conflicting "versions" of who was to blame for killing Jesus. There was not a conflicting version of the story which blamed the Romans for killing Jesus.
No they weren't. And in any case there were not other versions of who killed Jesus which got suppressed. There was not a group of dissenters claiming it was the Romans rather than "the Jews" who killed Jesus. Had no Jews got killed in "the revolts" there still would not have been any other version of it saying it was the Romans or Pilate who were to blame for killing Jesus. There was not an ongoing heated debate over who really killed Jesus. It's only centuries later that this became a topic of debate.
They make sense if Jesus was not a rebel but had followers among whom were some rebels who attached themselves to him, hoping he would become a leader of their violent uprising. This interpretation makes more sense than claiming he was an anti-Roman rebel leader, because if he actually intended to lead a violent revolution against Rome, we'd see some clear indication of it in the written accounts, showing that he promoted such a rebellion. But there are no indications of this in any of the accounts.
Whatever you point to, e.g., in the arrest scenario, to indicate an insurrectionist activity going on, can be fully explained as a case of SUSPICION of insurrection, or of something which might lead to insurrection, rather than actual insurrection being led by Jesus. For us to conclude that he actually led an insurrection as his mission, we need at least something saying this explicitly. We need him quoted as saying something belligerent toward Rome or the Emperor.
All that there is are some warnings about future persecutions, where the disciples will need to arm themselves defensively, and warnings about being brought before magistrates who will accuse them. There's nothing in anything he says urging violent rebellion to overthrow any existing government.
If the only written accounts say nothing of it, it's strong evidence that he was not a rebel leader. I.e., the evidence is that he was not, but one is free to reject the evidence as wrong and propose something contrary to the evidence. In rare cases perhaps the evidence does get it wrong. But it's perfectly reasonable to believe Jesus was not a militant rebel leader, based on the evidence, and to not adopt offbeat theories which contradict the evidence.
The need to eliminate Prophets who attract a following
We have the similar case of John the Baptist who was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas. Josephus reports this, and there's no indication that he was an insurrectionist. The governor feared him because he attracted crowds, and this might mean trouble. He needed no reason beyond this. And we can assume that Jesus also was seen as dangerous for similar reasons, without the need for him to have been an insurrectionist.
You can believe the offbeat theory that he was an anti-Roman rebel, if it makes you feel good, but with nothing in the written record saying this, there's no need to believe it. Everything makes sense without the need to turn Jesus into an insurrectionist leader. It contradicts the accounts we have, and there's no reason to think it would not have been written somewhere in the accounts if it was the case.
Though the truth can be excluded from this or that document, or suppressed, the chance of this decreases as the number of accounts increases, because the editors trying to censor it cannot control all the written accounts, and censor out every reference needing to be deleted. There should be something in the Gospel accounts, or the epistles, giving a clue that he was a rebel leader. There's too much "paper trail" there for there to be nothing indicating it.
The Romans could easily have executed him on the suspicion that he was leading a rebellion, even though he was not, or on the suspicion that he was giving leadership to such rebels, as a rallying point for them, even though he was not planning any violent uprising.
So it's easy to explain why they executed him even though he was innocent of the insurrection crime. Had he been leading such a rebellion, we'd see something in the accounts saying this.
It's not clear about "the many times" they saw him teaching. There's no reason to assume the particular soldiers coming to arrest him had seen him "many times" or would know him in contrast to everyone else. Even if there's a minor problem with this detail of the arrest scene, or a flaw in the account, it's no evidence that Jesus had to be a rebel leader.
Whatever doubtful elements or confusions there are in the arrest scenario, it's all just as easily explained if there were some rebels among his followers, with no need to assume he was really a militant rebel leader. I.e., the militant insurrectionist theory does not explain it any better. The SUSPICION that he was leading rebels explains everything just as well. I.e., the explanation that he was seen by some rebels as hopefully serving such a role to lead a violent revolt, though this was a mistake on their part, misinterpreting what his mission really was.
Whereas if he really had been a rebel leader, we'd see some explicit reference to this in the written record.
Assuming he's really the one who did this, it was an act against the temple Jewish authorities and not an anti-Roman act. This is the only violent act attributed to him, and there's nothing anti-Roman about it suggested in the accounts. With no evidence of anything anti-Roman, the reasonable conclusion is that he was not an anti-Roman militant, and the confrontational elements presented were that of controversy between rival Jewish factions.
Of course you can believe contrary to the evidence if you wish -- just don't insist that everyone has to agree with your offbeat anti-Roman insurrectionist theory which goes against the evidence we have.
Some offbeat theories might be true. It's just that you can't expect everyone to adopt such theories. You can't accuse them of being unreasonable simply because they choose to accept the available evidence rather than the oddball theory going against the evidence.
You undermine your case with this, because if there were so many others "talking about" these things in Jerusalem, then Jesus was only one of many, and the ones coming to arrest him would not know who he was and would need Judas to give them the signal which one to arrest. But also, if Jesus was no one special, as you're saying above, then what was the point of sending anyone to arrest him? Your whole theory fails to explain why Jesus had any importance at all, and thus why Paul and the Gospel writers paid any attention to him, or to this "movement" which was irrelevant to anything.
No, now you're contradicting what you said above, that he was just one of thousands of others in Jerusalem doing nothing different. In which case the police coming for him would need an informer to point him out, because otherwise they wouldn't recognize him, because they'd be unable to distinguish him from all the others.
You need to go back to the drawing board with all this.
We don't know nothing happened in response to this.
All of it makes sense if there were rebels who had attached themselves to Jesus hoping that he would lead their violent uprising. This makes more sense, because if Jesus really was a rebel leader organizing a revolution, we'd see some explicit statement of this, in the NT writings. It makes no sense that this was entirely omitted, if that's what he was.
They may have thought he was a rebel, but the explanation for this is that rebels attached themselves to him, hoping he would decide to lead their rebellion. At most they thought he was a rebel leader, but they could easily have been wrong in thinking this. But just the attraction of the rebels to him then made him a threat to the Romans and the Jewish Establishment, even though he was not leading the rebellion. They may have suspected him of this, while having doubts about it, but just the suspicion and uncertainty is enough for them to arrest him and want him eliminated.
Perhaps (or also it's possible the soldiers were NOT Roman), but it makes just as much sense if Jesus was only SUSPECTED of being an insurrectionist leader and really was not, or if he was seen as someone attracting rebels even though he was not himself an insurrectionist.
No, again, it makes as much sense, or more sense, if he was not leading it but had attracted some rebels who hoped he would assume leadership of their rebellion. This explains all of it, like why they fled. If his intended mission was to lead the rebellion, there'd be something in the accounts saying this explicitly.
No, not necessarily for blasphemy. It might have been for rebellion, thinking he was the leader, or a threat because of the rebels around him. And even if they knew he had done no insurrectionist act himself, they would still arrest him if those rebels were rallying around him, or if they only SUSPECTED him of insurrection, or thought there was a RISK of an uprising which would be fomented by his presence. None of this means that his mission was to lead a rebellion.
Assuming they all fled -- which might not be so -- the reason is that some of them were rebels, which all of them knew, and they feared being arrested as rebels. The rebel element was there and explains some of the events, but this doesn't make Jesus a rebel leader. It's all explained by the fact that he attracted some rebels who saw him as someone who would hopefully lead their insurrection against the Romans.
It's all explained by the fact that rebels had become attached to the group of disciples. This put all of them at risk of being arrested as rebels, though most of them were not. This presence of some rebels doesn't mean Jesus was a leader of the rebel cause.
For the Romans in power, the rule of thumb is: If in doubt, arrest them and crucify them just to make sure there's no trouble. Don't take chances. So any who stayed with him might also have been arrested as suspected rebels.
Or because that makes sense for someone perceived as an insurrectionist leader or serving as the rallying point for insurrectionists.
Yes, they saw him as more than only a teacher (for which they would not arrest him), but they could easily be mistaken to suspect him of insurrection. Rebels were among his followers, which made him dangerous to the authorities, or a high risk if permitted to continue his public activity. That he was perceived this way does not mean he actually was an insurrectionist leader.
But there was a claim that he was King or would become King. The claim alone made him a threat, if he had a serious following.
They were "in the fuck" mocking him because he was being proclaimed by some as King of the Jews. It's normal in some cases for soldiers or police to mock a prisoner who is claimed to be someone of high rank or status. Humiliating the perceived leader can serve a psychological purpose.
But he did not proclaim him innocent of pretending to be King.
There is evidence here that Jesus was not an insurrectionist leader. If he had been, Pilate would have quickly determined this and would have proclaimed him guilty without any hesitation to order his execution. You have to assume the Gospel accounts are completely false in saying he hesitated to condemn Jesus. Probably he did hesitate, and the later writers exaggerated this part of the scene, for dramatic effect. The depiction of Pilate's hesitation is probably not a total fiction, but an exaggeration.
Pilate's hesitancy can easily be explained by his disdain for the Judean accusers and his preference to stay out of their petty squabbles. And lack of evidence that Jesus had done any insurrectionist act. But he finally changed his mind, partly from pressure from the mob, but also because he decided it was risky to allow the would-be "King" to continue attracting militant rebels.
No, it was also to eliminate Jesus as a rallying point for anti-Roman rebels, or troublemakers trying to overthrow the established Jewish leadership or disrupt the temple affairs. Somewhere in the scenario Pilate must have considered the threat Jesus posed as someone attracting troublemakers or rebels or criminals, which then would give Pilate reason to order him executed. Plus also there's nothing unrealistic about him deciding to placate the mob. These disrupters at the "trial" could well have been dissident Jews such as from Qumran who saw Jesus as betraying the "Sons of Light" and flirting with the "Sons of Darkness" (Pharisees/Saducees/temple authorities). Or also some anti-Roman rebels saw him as a traitor to their cause.
Stop it -- Barabbas was not "convicted" and it was not Romans who were killed in the riot. There's no reason to assume the Roman soldiers present wanted revenge on Barabbas or wanted him condemned. Your scenario loses credibility the more you keep fabricating your own facts instead of just accepting the written accounts we have.
There can be a simple explanation why they preferred to kill Jesus rather than Barabbas who was really guilty. Jesus could have been seen as a much greater threat because of so many attracted to him, especially so many rebels trying to make him their leader. The best explanation for releasing Barabbas and killing Jesus instead is that this was an exchange deal, or trade, in which the Romans, and Jewish authorities, were able to eliminate the one they saw as a much greater threat, while Barabbas was a petty hothead criminal of minor significance for posing any threat.
The best explanation is the one which takes into account all the facts presented in the documents and minimum need to "toss out" reported facts which contradict the explanation. And this Barabbas scenario is best explained as a trade, to get rid of Jesus who was the greater threat, at the price of releasing a petty rebel who was guilty but posed a very minor threat by comparison. This explanation requires the least need to "toss out" reported facts in the documents.
The militant faction(s), yes. There's nothing wrong with placating a mob as part of the strategy to end the disturbance. Barabbas might have been a militant who had sympathizers there who wanted him released.
No, they would have sung "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!" and saluted him with a Budweiser. It's nutty to suggest that the Roman soldiers would have acted on impulse against a perceived miscarriage of justice. Releasing Barabbas was probably a practical strategy, or cold calculation, against which the soldiers would not have reacted impulsively. Going into a sudden rage would be totally out of character for Romans.
No, they did not think Jesus was "innocent" of being a threat. What Pilate declared him "innocent" of was the charge of blasphemy, and perhaps also of the insurrection charge. But still he was seen as a danger if criminals or rebels were drawn to him to make him their leader. So it was for this reason that Pilate ordered him to be tortured and executed. The prudent course for Romans was to eliminate any source of trouble -- nip it in the bud, squash it, if it might lead to disorder. And "the Jews" pressuring him in this scene were a FACTION of Jews, probably militants, who saw Jesus as a traitor to the cause, and who shouted down any others present. It was appropriate to appease them to get the whole thing over with quicker.
This best explains what we see in the scene depicted.
So you think the Roman governor and soldiers were sensitive moralists who were squeamish and horrified at the possible shedding of innocent blood, and so they would always err on the side of safeguarding due process to all accused and insuring each individual's personal dignity and safety.
You might want to read up a little on the Romans.
No, such things did not exist. Insurrectionist leaders who got killed were always forgotten, without any cult left over to carry on their cause. The only hope is for another charismatic leader to come along to replace the one killed. If there was a resurgent cult resuming after Jesus, then this case was not that of an insurrectionist movement, but something basically different, and the rebels were only one of many elements of the population who had been attracted to him.
But there's no explanation why this cult grew and influenced anyone. No other rebel gang grew or influenced anyone once its leader had been crushed. And this one was the least likely to gain any traction, as its leader got snuffed out sooner than the others, in less than 3 years, and had no military victories at all, no successful uprising requiring extra forces to be detached to put it down.
So there has to be something more going on here than just another insurrectionist anti-Roman gang whose leader got martyred. Something more is needed to explain the new religious factions which gathered around this leader and made him into a "Messiah" and "Son of God" and other titles, AFTER he had been eliminated. There were no other cases of this where the gang continues to grow and requires Roman undercover agents be sent in to create a propaganda program to divert the followers and spin a new religious mythology for them, to keep them out of mischief. Such scenarios are bedtime stories only.
If there could possibly be rebel followers left over causing trouble, after the leader got eliminated, the response would be to just hunt them down and kill them, not create a new religion for them to give them something more wholesome to do with their time.
Your "Pauline 'Christianity'" makes little sense here, because it has to exclude all his writings, which were written for Greek and Roman readers, not Jews needing something to divert them from revolting against Rome. His audience was the new Christian communities far away from the land where there were Jewish anti-Roman rebels.
The sky's the limit if you want to spin your own tales to explain away the evidence from the 1st-century written record of what happened.
But if we stick to the facts, or the evidence from the written record, all of it is easily explained if the miracle acts described in the Gospels really did happen. This is what made Jesus stand out as important and caused many to make him into a god, or Messiah, and also inspired the anti-Roman rebels to rally to him as a possible leader for their cause. But without the miracle acts he did, we have no explanation why the rebels rallied around him, and also why he was worshiped as King or Messiah or Son of God, etc., especially AFTER he was killed. There were plenty of other "martyrs" just as noteworthy, with the only difference being that they did not reportedly do any miracle acts.
Any Argument from Miracles has to include the basic question: Did the claimed miracle events really happen? or are they just fiction? In the case of Jesus in the 1st century, the EVIDENCE is that the miracle acts did happen, even if the biblical accounts contain the normal element of fiction or propaganda to be expected in religious writings and even in ALL the ancient written documents.
Since the written record, multiple sources, shows that Jesus did perform the miracle acts, and there is no record from the time contradicting this, it's reasonable to believe it, even though it's NOT PROOF that the events happened. It's evidence better than we have for much of the ancient history events, and so one can reasonably believe it, based on this evidence.
There's no evidence or argument that the miracle acts did not happen other than the dogmatic premise that such events cannot happen. Except for that, the extra sources reporting the events in this case constitute legitimate evidence, and it's reasonable to believe it from the evidence. Yet even so one might reasonably disbelieve it because they demand a greater amount of evidence for miracle claims.
There is no recognized scientific principle establishing how much extra evidence is required in order for a miracle claim to be credible. In the Jesus case there is extra evidence beyond what is required for reports of normal events to be believed. 4 (5) sources near the time of the alleged event(s), with no contrary evidence, is more than enough evidence to establish credibility for normal events of history, and in fact only one source is usually sufficient.
So the cliché that belief is irrational, or that faith is contrary to reason, is incorrect in the case of Christ belief, which conforms to the evidence from the historical record. But at the same time beliefs relying on miracles are usually false, because in most or all cases (except this one) there is a lack of evidence.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
One conjecture is as good as another. What matters is that there is a "movement" there to take control of ("usurp") somehow. And what has to be answered is: What is this "movement" he's connecting to? Why is it important? Why does he want to "usurp" it or connect to it and control it? Why does he need to "spin" a mythology of any kind for this movement?
If Jesus did the miracles and resurrected, then we have the explanation what's happening, why it matters, and what Paul is trying to "usurp" or "spin" a mythology for. But if there's no unusual person who actually resurrected, but only another charlatan Messiah type who had led a rebel gang that was crushed, then what is it that Paul is wasting his time on here?
Your Paul scenario has to explain what's special about this "movement" he's trying to "usurp" and give this special attention to. Why would he care about it? or want to "usurp" it? If it's just another failed rebel gang whose leader got killed, which had happened hundreds of times previously, why would Paul care about it? Why was this "movement" any more important than the hundreds of others which he could try to "usurp"?
Whatever he claimed, he's not "THE one" claiming it, as though he originated the claim. He's only reiterating what others already claimed. He didn't invent this claim. Though it's not clear that he "claims it was the Jews" -- there's uncertainty whether he did claim this.
It was typical for Jews to blame other Jews for whatever went wrong and to not blame the Romans. The militants and Qumran dissidents etc. unleashed 90% of their hate against rival Jewish factions. But this did not make them Roman "agents," even though Rome probably gained from the Jews squabbling among each other and blaming other Jews instead of Romans.
He blames "the Jews" only in I Thessalonians 2:14-15 (assuming Paul is the real author of this passage), but also "the rulers of this age" (I Corinthians 2:8), which has to include Pilate and the Romans. When "the Jews" are referred to this way, it always means some faction or factions of Jews, not all Jews.
These ideas about "the Jews" did not originate with Paul, whether he said such things or not. If he wrote the Thessalonians text, he was only reflecting some ideas already circulating among early Christ-believers. If he said it, he didn't mean all Jews, but the militant factions, or the Jewish Establishment in Jerusalem.
There were no conflicting "versions" of who was to blame for killing Jesus. There was not a conflicting version of the story which blamed the Romans for killing Jesus.
No they weren't. And in any case there were not other versions of who killed Jesus which got suppressed. There was not a group of dissenters claiming it was the Romans rather than "the Jews" who killed Jesus. Had no Jews got killed in "the revolts" there still would not have been any other version of it saying it was the Romans or Pilate who were to blame for killing Jesus. There was not an ongoing heated debate over who really killed Jesus. It's only centuries later that this became a topic of debate.
They make sense if Jesus was not a rebel but had followers among whom were some rebels who attached themselves to him, hoping he would become a leader of their violent uprising. This interpretation makes more sense than claiming he was an anti-Roman rebel leader, because if he actually intended to lead a violent revolution against Rome, we'd see some clear indication of it in the written accounts, showing that he promoted such a rebellion. But there are no indications of this in any of the accounts.
Whatever you point to, e.g., in the arrest scenario, to indicate an insurrectionist activity going on, can be fully explained as a case of SUSPICION of insurrection, or of something which might lead to insurrection, rather than actual insurrection being led by Jesus. For us to conclude that he actually led an insurrection as his mission, we need at least something saying this explicitly. We need him quoted as saying something belligerent toward Rome or the Emperor.
All that there is are some warnings about future persecutions, where the disciples will need to arm themselves defensively, and warnings about being brought before magistrates who will accuse them. There's nothing in anything he says urging violent rebellion to overthrow any existing government.
If the only written accounts say nothing of it, it's strong evidence that he was not a rebel leader. I.e., the evidence is that he was not, but one is free to reject the evidence as wrong and propose something contrary to the evidence. In rare cases perhaps the evidence does get it wrong. But it's perfectly reasonable to believe Jesus was not a militant rebel leader, based on the evidence, and to not adopt offbeat theories which contradict the evidence.
The need to eliminate Prophets who attract a following
We have the similar case of John the Baptist who was arrested and beheaded by Herod Antipas. Josephus reports this, and there's no indication that he was an insurrectionist. The governor feared him because he attracted crowds, and this might mean trouble. He needed no reason beyond this. And we can assume that Jesus also was seen as dangerous for similar reasons, without the need for him to have been an insurrectionist.
You can believe the offbeat theory that he was an anti-Roman rebel, if it makes you feel good, but with nothing in the written record saying this, there's no need to believe it. Everything makes sense without the need to turn Jesus into an insurrectionist leader. It contradicts the accounts we have, and there's no reason to think it would not have been written somewhere in the accounts if it was the case.
Though the truth can be excluded from this or that document, or suppressed, the chance of this decreases as the number of accounts increases, because the editors trying to censor it cannot control all the written accounts, and censor out every reference needing to be deleted. There should be something in the Gospel accounts, or the epistles, giving a clue that he was a rebel leader. There's too much "paper trail" there for there to be nothing indicating it.
The Romans could easily have executed him on the suspicion that he was leading a rebellion, even though he was not, or on the suspicion that he was giving leadership to such rebels, as a rallying point for them, even though he was not planning any violent uprising.
So it's easy to explain why they executed him even though he was innocent of the insurrection crime. Had he been leading such a rebellion, we'd see something in the accounts saying this.
It's not clear about "the many times" they saw him teaching. There's no reason to assume the particular soldiers coming to arrest him had seen him "many times" or would know him in contrast to everyone else. Even if there's a minor problem with this detail of the arrest scene, or a flaw in the account, it's no evidence that Jesus had to be a rebel leader.
Whatever doubtful elements or confusions there are in the arrest scenario, it's all just as easily explained if there were some rebels among his followers, with no need to assume he was really a militant rebel leader. I.e., the militant insurrectionist theory does not explain it any better. The SUSPICION that he was leading rebels explains everything just as well. I.e., the explanation that he was seen by some rebels as hopefully serving such a role to lead a violent revolt, though this was a mistake on their part, misinterpreting what his mission really was.
Whereas if he really had been a rebel leader, we'd see some explicit reference to this in the written record.
Assuming he's really the one who did this, it was an act against the temple Jewish authorities and not an anti-Roman act. This is the only violent act attributed to him, and there's nothing anti-Roman about it suggested in the accounts. With no evidence of anything anti-Roman, the reasonable conclusion is that he was not an anti-Roman militant, and the confrontational elements presented were that of controversy between rival Jewish factions.
Of course you can believe contrary to the evidence if you wish -- just don't insist that everyone has to agree with your offbeat anti-Roman insurrectionist theory which goes against the evidence we have.
Some offbeat theories might be true. It's just that you can't expect everyone to adopt such theories. You can't accuse them of being unreasonable simply because they choose to accept the available evidence rather than the oddball theory going against the evidence.
You undermine your case with this, because if there were so many others "talking about" these things in Jerusalem, then Jesus was only one of many, and the ones coming to arrest him would not know who he was and would need Judas to give them the signal which one to arrest. But also, if Jesus was no one special, as you're saying above, then what was the point of sending anyone to arrest him? Your whole theory fails to explain why Jesus had any importance at all, and thus why Paul and the Gospel writers paid any attention to him, or to this "movement" which was irrelevant to anything.
No, now you're contradicting what you said above, that he was just one of thousands of others in Jerusalem doing nothing different. In which case the police coming for him would need an informer to point him out, because otherwise they wouldn't recognize him, because they'd be unable to distinguish him from all the others.
You need to go back to the drawing board with all this.
We don't know nothing happened in response to this.
All of it makes sense if there were rebels who had attached themselves to Jesus hoping that he would lead their violent uprising. This makes more sense, because if Jesus really was a rebel leader organizing a revolution, we'd see some explicit statement of this, in the NT writings. It makes no sense that this was entirely omitted, if that's what he was.
They may have thought he was a rebel, but the explanation for this is that rebels attached themselves to him, hoping he would decide to lead their rebellion. At most they thought he was a rebel leader, but they could easily have been wrong in thinking this. But just the attraction of the rebels to him then made him a threat to the Romans and the Jewish Establishment, even though he was not leading the rebellion. They may have suspected him of this, while having doubts about it, but just the suspicion and uncertainty is enough for them to arrest him and want him eliminated.
Perhaps (or also it's possible the soldiers were NOT Roman), but it makes just as much sense if Jesus was only SUSPECTED of being an insurrectionist leader and really was not, or if he was seen as someone attracting rebels even though he was not himself an insurrectionist.
No, again, it makes as much sense, or more sense, if he was not leading it but had attracted some rebels who hoped he would assume leadership of their rebellion. This explains all of it, like why they fled. If his intended mission was to lead the rebellion, there'd be something in the accounts saying this explicitly.
No, not necessarily for blasphemy. It might have been for rebellion, thinking he was the leader, or a threat because of the rebels around him. And even if they knew he had done no insurrectionist act himself, they would still arrest him if those rebels were rallying around him, or if they only SUSPECTED him of insurrection, or thought there was a RISK of an uprising which would be fomented by his presence. None of this means that his mission was to lead a rebellion.
Assuming they all fled -- which might not be so -- the reason is that some of them were rebels, which all of them knew, and they feared being arrested as rebels. The rebel element was there and explains some of the events, but this doesn't make Jesus a rebel leader. It's all explained by the fact that he attracted some rebels who saw him as someone who would hopefully lead their insurrection against the Romans.
It's all explained by the fact that rebels had become attached to the group of disciples. This put all of them at risk of being arrested as rebels, though most of them were not. This presence of some rebels doesn't mean Jesus was a leader of the rebel cause.
For the Romans in power, the rule of thumb is: If in doubt, arrest them and crucify them just to make sure there's no trouble. Don't take chances. So any who stayed with him might also have been arrested as suspected rebels.
Or because that makes sense for someone perceived as an insurrectionist leader or serving as the rallying point for insurrectionists.
Yes, they saw him as more than only a teacher (for which they would not arrest him), but they could easily be mistaken to suspect him of insurrection. Rebels were among his followers, which made him dangerous to the authorities, or a high risk if permitted to continue his public activity. That he was perceived this way does not mean he actually was an insurrectionist leader.
But there was a claim that he was King or would become King. The claim alone made him a threat, if he had a serious following.
They were "in the fuck" mocking him because he was being proclaimed by some as King of the Jews. It's normal in some cases for soldiers or police to mock a prisoner who is claimed to be someone of high rank or status. Humiliating the perceived leader can serve a psychological purpose.
But he did not proclaim him innocent of pretending to be King.
There is evidence here that Jesus was not an insurrectionist leader. If he had been, Pilate would have quickly determined this and would have proclaimed him guilty without any hesitation to order his execution. You have to assume the Gospel accounts are completely false in saying he hesitated to condemn Jesus. Probably he did hesitate, and the later writers exaggerated this part of the scene, for dramatic effect. The depiction of Pilate's hesitation is probably not a total fiction, but an exaggeration.
Pilate's hesitancy can easily be explained by his disdain for the Judean accusers and his preference to stay out of their petty squabbles. And lack of evidence that Jesus had done any insurrectionist act. But he finally changed his mind, partly from pressure from the mob, but also because he decided it was risky to allow the would-be "King" to continue attracting militant rebels.
No, it was also to eliminate Jesus as a rallying point for anti-Roman rebels, or troublemakers trying to overthrow the established Jewish leadership or disrupt the temple affairs. Somewhere in the scenario Pilate must have considered the threat Jesus posed as someone attracting troublemakers or rebels or criminals, which then would give Pilate reason to order him executed. Plus also there's nothing unrealistic about him deciding to placate the mob. These disrupters at the "trial" could well have been dissident Jews such as from Qumran who saw Jesus as betraying the "Sons of Light" and flirting with the "Sons of Darkness" (Pharisees/Saducees/temple authorities). Or also some anti-Roman rebels saw him as a traitor to their cause.
Stop it -- Barabbas was not "convicted" and it was not Romans who were killed in the riot. There's no reason to assume the Roman soldiers present wanted revenge on Barabbas or wanted him condemned. Your scenario loses credibility the more you keep fabricating your own facts instead of just accepting the written accounts we have.
There can be a simple explanation why they preferred to kill Jesus rather than Barabbas who was really guilty. Jesus could have been seen as a much greater threat because of so many attracted to him, especially so many rebels trying to make him their leader. The best explanation for releasing Barabbas and killing Jesus instead is that this was an exchange deal, or trade, in which the Romans, and Jewish authorities, were able to eliminate the one they saw as a much greater threat, while Barabbas was a petty hothead criminal of minor significance for posing any threat.
The best explanation is the one which takes into account all the facts presented in the documents and minimum need to "toss out" reported facts which contradict the explanation. And this Barabbas scenario is best explained as a trade, to get rid of Jesus who was the greater threat, at the price of releasing a petty rebel who was guilty but posed a very minor threat by comparison. This explanation requires the least need to "toss out" reported facts in the documents.
The militant faction(s), yes. There's nothing wrong with placating a mob as part of the strategy to end the disturbance. Barabbas might have been a militant who had sympathizers there who wanted him released.
No, they would have sung "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!" and saluted him with a Budweiser. It's nutty to suggest that the Roman soldiers would have acted on impulse against a perceived miscarriage of justice. Releasing Barabbas was probably a practical strategy, or cold calculation, against which the soldiers would not have reacted impulsively. Going into a sudden rage would be totally out of character for Romans.
No, they did not think Jesus was "innocent" of being a threat. What Pilate declared him "innocent" of was the charge of blasphemy, and perhaps also of the insurrection charge. But still he was seen as a danger if criminals or rebels were drawn to him to make him their leader. So it was for this reason that Pilate ordered him to be tortured and executed. The prudent course for Romans was to eliminate any source of trouble -- nip it in the bud, squash it, if it might lead to disorder. And "the Jews" pressuring him in this scene were a FACTION of Jews, probably militants, who saw Jesus as a traitor to the cause, and who shouted down any others present. It was appropriate to appease them to get the whole thing over with quicker.
This best explains what we see in the scene depicted.
So you think the Roman governor and soldiers were sensitive moralists who were squeamish and horrified at the possible shedding of innocent blood, and so they would always err on the side of safeguarding due process to all accused and insuring each individual's personal dignity and safety.
You might want to read up a little on the Romans.
No, such things did not exist. Insurrectionist leaders who got killed were always forgotten, without any cult left over to carry on their cause. The only hope is for another charismatic leader to come along to replace the one killed. If there was a resurgent cult resuming after Jesus, then this case was not that of an insurrectionist movement, but something basically different, and the rebels were only one of many elements of the population who had been attracted to him.
But there's no explanation why this cult grew and influenced anyone. No other rebel gang grew or influenced anyone once its leader had been crushed. And this one was the least likely to gain any traction, as its leader got snuffed out sooner than the others, in less than 3 years, and had no military victories at all, no successful uprising requiring extra forces to be detached to put it down.
So there has to be something more going on here than just another insurrectionist anti-Roman gang whose leader got martyred. Something more is needed to explain the new religious factions which gathered around this leader and made him into a "Messiah" and "Son of God" and other titles, AFTER he had been eliminated. There were no other cases of this where the gang continues to grow and requires Roman undercover agents be sent in to create a propaganda program to divert the followers and spin a new religious mythology for them, to keep them out of mischief. Such scenarios are bedtime stories only.
If there could possibly be rebel followers left over causing trouble, after the leader got eliminated, the response would be to just hunt them down and kill them, not create a new religion for them to give them something more wholesome to do with their time.
Your "Pauline 'Christianity'" makes little sense here, because it has to exclude all his writings, which were written for Greek and Roman readers, not Jews needing something to divert them from revolting against Rome. His audience was the new Christian communities far away from the land where there were Jewish anti-Roman rebels.
The sky's the limit if you want to spin your own tales to explain away the evidence from the 1st-century written record of what happened.
But if we stick to the facts, or the evidence from the written record, all of it is easily explained if the miracle acts described in the Gospels really did happen. This is what made Jesus stand out as important and caused many to make him into a god, or Messiah, and also inspired the anti-Roman rebels to rally to him as a possible leader for their cause. But without the miracle acts he did, we have no explanation why the rebels rallied around him, and also why he was worshiped as King or Messiah or Son of God, etc., especially AFTER he was killed. There were plenty of other "martyrs" just as noteworthy, with the only difference being that they did not reportedly do any miracle acts.
Any Argument from Miracles has to include the basic question: Did the claimed miracle events really happen? or are they just fiction? In the case of Jesus in the 1st century, the EVIDENCE is that the miracle acts did happen, even if the biblical accounts contain the normal element of fiction or propaganda to be expected in religious writings and even in ALL the ancient written documents.
Since the written record, multiple sources, shows that Jesus did perform the miracle acts, and there is no record from the time contradicting this, it's reasonable to believe it, even though it's NOT PROOF that the events happened. It's evidence better than we have for much of the ancient history events, and so one can reasonably believe it, based on this evidence.
There's no evidence or argument that the miracle acts did not happen other than the dogmatic premise that such events cannot happen. Except for that, the extra sources reporting the events in this case constitute legitimate evidence, and it's reasonable to believe it from the evidence. Yet even so one might reasonably disbelieve it because they demand a greater amount of evidence for miracle claims.
There is no recognized scientific principle establishing how much extra evidence is required in order for a miracle claim to be credible. In the Jesus case there is extra evidence beyond what is required for reports of normal events to be believed. 4 (5) sources near the time of the alleged event(s), with no contrary evidence, is more than enough evidence to establish credibility for normal events of history, and in fact only one source is usually sufficient.
So the cliché that belief is irrational, or that faith is contrary to reason, is incorrect in the case of Christ belief, which conforms to the evidence from the historical record. But at the same time beliefs relying on miracles are usually false, because in most or all cases (except this one) there is a lack of evidence.
Last edited:
DBT
Contributor
A lot of things have been written about that aren't necessarily true. Just because miracles are described in the Gospels doesn't mean they actually happened.
Cheerful Charlie
Contributor
The very earliest writings we know for sure existed disappeared very quickly. Papias, as mentioned by Eusebius, and early Christian who wrote about what he had learned first hand from the living followers of the apostles, mentioned tow works. Mark who wrote down what he had heard Peter in Rome relate, not a narrative and thus not our gospel of Mark. And a book written by Matthew in Aramaic, a collection of sayings of Jeshua Ben Joseph, not our gospel of Matthew. All of this disappeared, Papias's Mark, Matthew and most of Papias except a few fragments preserved in Eusebius. If anything else was written early on, it disappeared also, we have no traces of anything like it.
The Ebionites, followers of Jesus lead by his brother James left us nothing. Nobody bothered to ask them to tell what happened and found it worth writing down. Paul's writings tell us almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul had no interest in finding out and writing it all down.
Nobody did. Instead we get the infantile gospels that contradict each other so badly that all we can tell from them is they are all false and not the writings of people who were truthful, or who knew anything worth relating, or were in any way or form trustworthy. and later gospels so outlandish even the notably gullible early Christians could not accept them. Christ as a young boy making clay birds and bringing them to life and other bizarre nonsense.
In the end, Jesus is represented as telling us he would soon return from Heaven and a new world would arise out of ashes of the old. It did not as promised. This silliness of awaiting his arrival any day now isn't worth bothering with. Fancy dance steps to avoid accepting the fact Jesus is dead and did not come back as promised won't fly with many of us here.
The Ebionites, followers of Jesus lead by his brother James left us nothing. Nobody bothered to ask them to tell what happened and found it worth writing down. Paul's writings tell us almost nothing about the life of Jesus. Paul had no interest in finding out and writing it all down.
Nobody did. Instead we get the infantile gospels that contradict each other so badly that all we can tell from them is they are all false and not the writings of people who were truthful, or who knew anything worth relating, or were in any way or form trustworthy. and later gospels so outlandish even the notably gullible early Christians could not accept them. Christ as a young boy making clay birds and bringing them to life and other bizarre nonsense.
In the end, Jesus is represented as telling us he would soon return from Heaven and a new world would arise out of ashes of the old. It did not as promised. This silliness of awaiting his arrival any day now isn't worth bothering with. Fancy dance steps to avoid accepting the fact Jesus is dead and did not come back as promised won't fly with many of us here.
Don't forget the dragons that little Jesus tamed, and which formed part of the family's menagerie on their journey. Or that little Jesus had a habit of zapping his playmates dead and then sometimes bringing them back to life, depending on his mood.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Ok, you want a wall of text? You got it.
And the answer is painfully obvious to anyone not brainwashed into a cult. The only thing that would matter to Rome is insurrection. You know, like what actually happened in the exact area we're talking about at the exact time that GMark is estimated to have been written?
Just like with the Aquaduct, Pilate would have "intelligence" officers throughout Jerusalem always looking for any signs of insurrectionists. That's how Barabbas would have been caught in the first place.
It starts with Mark 14:10:
Why to any of that? How to any of that? Was Jesus in hiding? Did they have some sort of secret lair that only the twelve knew how to access? Why would they? Nothing they were doing--on the surface--was illegal or out of the ordinary or what literally thousands of other cult separatists were doing in the area long before Jesus ever showed up and all Jesus ever preached (allegedly) was pro-Roman love and understanding and be meek and pay your taxes and give them your shirt and don't break the law and turn the other cheek. Etc., etc., etc.
And "betray" in what way? "Hey Chief Priests, you know that guy you don't like that you've been openly questioning at the Temple every day for the past few weeks? You know, the one that made all that ruckus about the money changers and that you, for some strange reason keep letting teach inside the Temple, in spite of the fact that he's spouting things you supposedly don't like? You know, that bearded guy right over there that you've all seen countless times standing two feet in front of you? I'll 'betray' him to you for money and watch for an opportunity to hand him over to you in spite of the many many many opportunities you've already had to grab him any time you want to."
Then, of course, the most bizarre part, for no logical reason whatsoever, Judas needs to kiss Jesus--VERY famous kiss this--in order to identify which one he is. Again, why? Every Jewish thug that the San Hedrin knew and supposedly sent with Judas would have known precisely who Jesus was having seen him countless times at the Temple and with the San Hedrin and around town. Jesus even says this to their faces, which I'll get to in a minute.
You can't have the San Hedrin constantly doing things like:
And then have them somehow find a "crowd" of Jews that don't know who Jesus is.
That makes absolutely no sense. What DOES make sense, however, is if no one knows that Jesus is actually an insurrectionist leader and Judas is betraying him to the Romans and the "crowd armed with swords and clubs" were actually Roman soldiers sent by Pilate. And the reason Judas kisses Jesus is to identify him as the leader of the nascent insurrectionist movement that the Romans have been looking for and suspecting and infiltrating, etc.
Iow, for that passage to make any sense whatsoever, what wasn't known to the Romans was that the humble carpenter teaching in the Jewish Temple was also the leader of an insurrectionist movement and Judas had to lead the Roman soldiers to their secret meeting place and identify which one is the leader because they wouldn't fucking know--or give a shit about--who some homeless carpenter Rabbi was.
And why didn't Judas just tell them? How? And why would they believe him? They needed proof and the proof would be that Judas was able to take them to the right spot and knew the right code words and was able to go right up to the man himself and identify him in a way that wouldn't get Judas killed as a traitor to the movement.
THAT is worth a bag of silver to the Romans. For the Jews, all they would have to do is grab him in the Temple any day of the week.
Then passages like this make sense:
And Mark 13 is not about the end of time, but what's going to happen during the coming revolt and the "gospel" (the "good news") is a reference to being free from Roman tyranny:
Betrayal and rebellion. Which makes no fucking sense at all if Jesus is just a humble carpenter Jewish Rabbi preaching be meek and you'll inherit the earth, but makes total sense if he's actually the leader of a growing insurrectionist movement and what they've really be talking about in their secret meetings is how they're going to fuck up Pilate and the Roman occupiers and Rome itself. Like burning it to the ground years after Jesus was caught, exactly as Nero claimed they did.
The author of Mark (which most scholars believe to be a Roman, not a Jew) even has his Jesus ask, "Am I leading a rebellion" and he points out "Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me."
Well, if that's true--and it must be if Jesus said it--then why the fuck does Judas need to kiss him? The betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man." They know who the "man" is, they were with him for days teaching in the temple courts!
Unless, of course, the men with Judas were NOT Jews sent by the San Hedrin and were NOT the ones that were with Jesus every day as he taught in the temple courts, but were, in fact, Roman soldiers sent with their operative, Judas Iscariot, to lead them to a secret meeting place--where an insurrection was being planned--to arrest the leader they had been searching for, but did not know who he actually was.
Again, Jesus was supposedly nothing more than a humble carpenter rabbi going around teaching about love and turning the other cheek and rendering unto Caesar what is his and loving your enemies etc., etc., etc. ALL purely pro-Roman sentiments and some criticism about the orthodoxy that was in no way unique or out of the ordinary. The Essenes and the Zealots and the Pharisees and every single Jew to have ever lived were constantly debating orthodoxy and scripture and no doubt criticizing everyone all the time in regard to power and who had it and who didn't and how cozy this one or that one was getting with their enemies, the Romans and how it was necessary to keep the peace and you just don't know, etc.,etc.etc.
The proof of this is that Jesus is teaching repeatedly in the Temple--the most holy of all Jewish holy places on the planet at that time (and since, arguably)--which had to have been approved and allowed by the San Hedrin. It's not a free for all. It wasn't a democratic institution where any Jew could just stand up and start teaching in the Temple. Being a Rabbi was not just something you called yourself one day and presto, you're a Rabbi.
Which then brings us to the trial sequence that could never have happened the way it was depicted. We have TWO passages that reiterate the San Hedrin are so terrified of the Jewish people because of their overwhelming love for Jesus that they supposedly conspire with Pilate to have him kill him. And it begins from the very first time Jesus enters:
And then again:
And yet, just two days later, after their plan to conspire with the Jews' mortal enemy, Pilate, is betrayed and they are revealed, somehow the much feared crowd of festival Jews that were "amazed" at Jesus' teachings and so loved him that they may riot against the San Hedrin should they try to kill Jesus (which meant they knew they had the authority to do so, but for that fear stopping them), we have this contradictory result:
They did? How the fuck did they do that? What's more:
What the fuckity fuck!? Why? Why does the crowd--that the San Hedrin so feared would rise up and kill them if they dared to kill Jesus for blasphemy--one of the highest capital crimes one could commit for a Jew in that time--suddenly and for no apparent reason not just abandon Jesus, but insist that Pilate murder him in the most gruesome manner known at the time, reserved primarily for, well, hey, what do you know? For insurrectionists.
Secret hiding places and code phrases and arranged meeting places and a kiss identifies a man that they all already know and then a "trial" where Pilate knows the man isn't guilty of anything, ASKS the crowd what he should do with the innocent man, and the crowd, somehow riled up by the San Hedrin who betrayed them all, just inexplicably and for no reason whatsoever demand Pilate murder him.
No. None of that ever happened. And certainly not because of any kind of "custom." Just imagine if the Governor of your state announced, "To appease the Christians amongst us, it is the custom of our State to let them tell us which serial murderer in our jails can go free." Or, to be more accurately reflective of the proper perspective, it would be like the Governor of your state announcing, "To appease the Satanists amongst us, it is the custom of our State to let them tell us which serial murderer of Christians shall go free."
So, why the fiction? Precisely because it's propaganda. Propaganda has to adhere as close to the truth as it possibly can or else it's not effective. Why? Because there might be people alive who knew the real story and would thus be able to flat out deny a totally fake one. There has to be some truth to it. That's the whole point. To blend in enough fiction that the truth gets blurred. We see this today in particular with everything the Trump occupation pulls. It's the Russians, but, I don't know, it could be the Chinese or the Ukrainians or a 400 pound guy sitting in his basement.
That there was a traitor inside the insurrectionist movement--Judas--that betrayed the movement to the Romans would be a well known aspect of the true history. So the propagandist would have to not only include that bit, but figure out ways to flip it; to make it part of the new fiction.
That Pilate was actually the one who tried and convicted and ordered Jesus' death by crucifixion would likewise be a big, known component of the true history, so the propagandist must likewise find a way to flip it; to exonerate Pilate, while at the same time include the known fact that it was ultimately he who ordered Jesus tortured and killed.
And then you have this little tidbit:
Why? Why do the soldiers do any of that? From their perspective, they would have just witnessed their Prefect--their Commander in Chief in that region--not only set free a Jewish convicted murderer of their brother Roman soldiers, but ALSO their leader order a man he just found completely innocent of any crime tortured and murdered for no other reason than the crowd of Jews demanded it of him. Pilate, taking orders from Jews to the level of releasing a convicted insurrectionist murderer and torturing/murdering a completely innocent man.
Both of those actions would immediately be the cause of Pilate's own crucifixion as a traitor to Rome.
Even if Pilate had ordered Jesus tortured and crucified to please the Jews, why then would the soldiers mock Jesus, let alone bother to put purple robes on him and fashion a fucking crown of thorns, no less? No Roman believed him to be a King. Pilate did not believe him to be a King. The Jews clearly did not believe him to be a King. Jesus did not believe himself to be a King.
Now boot up the idea that this is a propagandist's revision of actual events and Jesus was actually an insurrectionist leader, publicly convicted in front of his fellow Jews and ordered tortured and crucified by Pilate as a lesson for all the festival Jews--aka, pretty much all the Jews in the world congregating there for the festival--the perfect audience for such a stark lesson against anyone even thinking about sedition against their new overlords.
What would Roman soldiers do to a Jewish insurrectionist leader--a would be actual King of the Jews--in that scenario, just after their leader--Pilate--publicly tried him in front of the largest gathering of Jews in the world; during their "festival" no less?
Precisely what was described. They would mock and torture and make fun of a Jew thinking he would lead an insurrection against the Roman Empire. They would take the time to fashion a crown of thorns and put purple robes on a Jew thinking that he would be a King like Caesar. Not a spiritual King, which would have made no sense to a Roman soldier, but an ACTUAL King killing Roman soldiers first and foremost to overthrow the Empire.
THAT would be worthy of such elaborate steps taken by the Soldiers, but certainly not the version we have. AND, more importantly, it would have been something noteworthy by witnesses who were there to see it. So, once again, it would have to be included, but flipped by a Roman propagandist whose job it is to revise history, not just make up a complete fiction.
Who could say whether or not there was actually a "custom" forty years ago? That doesn't make much sense to me, and grandpa says it never happened, but I guess maybe something like that could have been. It's 70 CE so I don't have the internet to look it up and would have to take the story at it's word and my grandfather DID say that Pilate ordered him tortured and crucified and that the soldiers mocked him and that one of his own men--Judas--betrayed him to the authorities, so all of those parts of the story are corroborated by people who were there at the time, so I guess that part about the custom is also true and my grandpa just forgot about it, like he does most things these days since he's in his 80s.
Etc.
And the answer is painfully obvious to anyone not brainwashed into a cult. The only thing that would matter to Rome is insurrection. You know, like what actually happened in the exact area we're talking about at the exact time that GMark is estimated to have been written?
Just like with the Aquaduct, Pilate would have "intelligence" officers throughout Jerusalem always looking for any signs of insurrectionists. That's how Barabbas would have been caught in the first place.
It starts with Mark 14:10:
Why to any of that? How to any of that? Was Jesus in hiding? Did they have some sort of secret lair that only the twelve knew how to access? Why would they? Nothing they were doing--on the surface--was illegal or out of the ordinary or what literally thousands of other cult separatists were doing in the area long before Jesus ever showed up and all Jesus ever preached (allegedly) was pro-Roman love and understanding and be meek and pay your taxes and give them your shirt and don't break the law and turn the other cheek. Etc., etc., etc.
And "betray" in what way? "Hey Chief Priests, you know that guy you don't like that you've been openly questioning at the Temple every day for the past few weeks? You know, the one that made all that ruckus about the money changers and that you, for some strange reason keep letting teach inside the Temple, in spite of the fact that he's spouting things you supposedly don't like? You know, that bearded guy right over there that you've all seen countless times standing two feet in front of you? I'll 'betray' him to you for money and watch for an opportunity to hand him over to you in spite of the many many many opportunities you've already had to grab him any time you want to."
Then, of course, the most bizarre part, for no logical reason whatsoever, Judas needs to kiss Jesus--VERY famous kiss this--in order to identify which one he is. Again, why? Every Jewish thug that the San Hedrin knew and supposedly sent with Judas would have known precisely who Jesus was having seen him countless times at the Temple and with the San Hedrin and around town. Jesus even says this to their faces, which I'll get to in a minute.
You can't have the San Hedrin constantly doing things like:
And then have them somehow find a "crowd" of Jews that don't know who Jesus is.
That makes absolutely no sense. What DOES make sense, however, is if no one knows that Jesus is actually an insurrectionist leader and Judas is betraying him to the Romans and the "crowd armed with swords and clubs" were actually Roman soldiers sent by Pilate. And the reason Judas kisses Jesus is to identify him as the leader of the nascent insurrectionist movement that the Romans have been looking for and suspecting and infiltrating, etc.
Iow, for that passage to make any sense whatsoever, what wasn't known to the Romans was that the humble carpenter teaching in the Jewish Temple was also the leader of an insurrectionist movement and Judas had to lead the Roman soldiers to their secret meeting place and identify which one is the leader because they wouldn't fucking know--or give a shit about--who some homeless carpenter Rabbi was.
And why didn't Judas just tell them? How? And why would they believe him? They needed proof and the proof would be that Judas was able to take them to the right spot and knew the right code words and was able to go right up to the man himself and identify him in a way that wouldn't get Judas killed as a traitor to the movement.
THAT is worth a bag of silver to the Romans. For the Jews, all they would have to do is grab him in the Temple any day of the week.
Then passages like this make sense:
And Mark 13 is not about the end of time, but what's going to happen during the coming revolt and the "gospel" (the "good news") is a reference to being free from Roman tyranny:
Betrayal and rebellion. Which makes no fucking sense at all if Jesus is just a humble carpenter Jewish Rabbi preaching be meek and you'll inherit the earth, but makes total sense if he's actually the leader of a growing insurrectionist movement and what they've really be talking about in their secret meetings is how they're going to fuck up Pilate and the Roman occupiers and Rome itself. Like burning it to the ground years after Jesus was caught, exactly as Nero claimed they did.
The author of Mark (which most scholars believe to be a Roman, not a Jew) even has his Jesus ask, "Am I leading a rebellion" and he points out "Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me."
Well, if that's true--and it must be if Jesus said it--then why the fuck does Judas need to kiss him? The betrayer had arranged a signal with them: “The one I kiss is the man." They know who the "man" is, they were with him for days teaching in the temple courts!
Unless, of course, the men with Judas were NOT Jews sent by the San Hedrin and were NOT the ones that were with Jesus every day as he taught in the temple courts, but were, in fact, Roman soldiers sent with their operative, Judas Iscariot, to lead them to a secret meeting place--where an insurrection was being planned--to arrest the leader they had been searching for, but did not know who he actually was.
Again, Jesus was supposedly nothing more than a humble carpenter rabbi going around teaching about love and turning the other cheek and rendering unto Caesar what is his and loving your enemies etc., etc., etc. ALL purely pro-Roman sentiments and some criticism about the orthodoxy that was in no way unique or out of the ordinary. The Essenes and the Zealots and the Pharisees and every single Jew to have ever lived were constantly debating orthodoxy and scripture and no doubt criticizing everyone all the time in regard to power and who had it and who didn't and how cozy this one or that one was getting with their enemies, the Romans and how it was necessary to keep the peace and you just don't know, etc.,etc.etc.
The proof of this is that Jesus is teaching repeatedly in the Temple--the most holy of all Jewish holy places on the planet at that time (and since, arguably)--which had to have been approved and allowed by the San Hedrin. It's not a free for all. It wasn't a democratic institution where any Jew could just stand up and start teaching in the Temple. Being a Rabbi was not just something you called yourself one day and presto, you're a Rabbi.
Which then brings us to the trial sequence that could never have happened the way it was depicted. We have TWO passages that reiterate the San Hedrin are so terrified of the Jewish people because of their overwhelming love for Jesus that they supposedly conspire with Pilate to have him kill him. And it begins from the very first time Jesus enters:
And then again:
And yet, just two days later, after their plan to conspire with the Jews' mortal enemy, Pilate, is betrayed and they are revealed, somehow the much feared crowd of festival Jews that were "amazed" at Jesus' teachings and so loved him that they may riot against the San Hedrin should they try to kill Jesus (which meant they knew they had the authority to do so, but for that fear stopping them), we have this contradictory result:
They did? How the fuck did they do that? What's more:What the fuckity fuck!? Why? Why does the crowd--that the San Hedrin so feared would rise up and kill them if they dared to kill Jesus for blasphemy--one of the highest capital crimes one could commit for a Jew in that time--suddenly and for no apparent reason not just abandon Jesus, but insist that Pilate murder him in the most gruesome manner known at the time, reserved primarily for, well, hey, what do you know? For insurrectionists.
Secret hiding places and code phrases and arranged meeting places and a kiss identifies a man that they all already know and then a "trial" where Pilate knows the man isn't guilty of anything, ASKS the crowd what he should do with the innocent man, and the crowd, somehow riled up by the San Hedrin who betrayed them all, just inexplicably and for no reason whatsoever demand Pilate murder him.
No. None of that ever happened. And certainly not because of any kind of "custom." Just imagine if the Governor of your state announced, "To appease the Christians amongst us, it is the custom of our State to let them tell us which serial murderer in our jails can go free." Or, to be more accurately reflective of the proper perspective, it would be like the Governor of your state announcing, "To appease the Satanists amongst us, it is the custom of our State to let them tell us which serial murderer of Christians shall go free."
So, why the fiction? Precisely because it's propaganda. Propaganda has to adhere as close to the truth as it possibly can or else it's not effective. Why? Because there might be people alive who knew the real story and would thus be able to flat out deny a totally fake one. There has to be some truth to it. That's the whole point. To blend in enough fiction that the truth gets blurred. We see this today in particular with everything the Trump occupation pulls. It's the Russians, but, I don't know, it could be the Chinese or the Ukrainians or a 400 pound guy sitting in his basement.
That there was a traitor inside the insurrectionist movement--Judas--that betrayed the movement to the Romans would be a well known aspect of the true history. So the propagandist would have to not only include that bit, but figure out ways to flip it; to make it part of the new fiction.
That Pilate was actually the one who tried and convicted and ordered Jesus' death by crucifixion would likewise be a big, known component of the true history, so the propagandist must likewise find a way to flip it; to exonerate Pilate, while at the same time include the known fact that it was ultimately he who ordered Jesus tortured and killed.
And then you have this little tidbit:
Why? Why do the soldiers do any of that? From their perspective, they would have just witnessed their Prefect--their Commander in Chief in that region--not only set free a Jewish convicted murderer of their brother Roman soldiers, but ALSO their leader order a man he just found completely innocent of any crime tortured and murdered for no other reason than the crowd of Jews demanded it of him. Pilate, taking orders from Jews to the level of releasing a convicted insurrectionist murderer and torturing/murdering a completely innocent man.
Both of those actions would immediately be the cause of Pilate's own crucifixion as a traitor to Rome.
Even if Pilate had ordered Jesus tortured and crucified to please the Jews, why then would the soldiers mock Jesus, let alone bother to put purple robes on him and fashion a fucking crown of thorns, no less? No Roman believed him to be a King. Pilate did not believe him to be a King. The Jews clearly did not believe him to be a King. Jesus did not believe himself to be a King.
Now boot up the idea that this is a propagandist's revision of actual events and Jesus was actually an insurrectionist leader, publicly convicted in front of his fellow Jews and ordered tortured and crucified by Pilate as a lesson for all the festival Jews--aka, pretty much all the Jews in the world congregating there for the festival--the perfect audience for such a stark lesson against anyone even thinking about sedition against their new overlords.
What would Roman soldiers do to a Jewish insurrectionist leader--a would be actual King of the Jews--in that scenario, just after their leader--Pilate--publicly tried him in front of the largest gathering of Jews in the world; during their "festival" no less?
Precisely what was described. They would mock and torture and make fun of a Jew thinking he would lead an insurrection against the Roman Empire. They would take the time to fashion a crown of thorns and put purple robes on a Jew thinking that he would be a King like Caesar. Not a spiritual King, which would have made no sense to a Roman soldier, but an ACTUAL King killing Roman soldiers first and foremost to overthrow the Empire.
THAT would be worthy of such elaborate steps taken by the Soldiers, but certainly not the version we have. AND, more importantly, it would have been something noteworthy by witnesses who were there to see it. So, once again, it would have to be included, but flipped by a Roman propagandist whose job it is to revise history, not just make up a complete fiction.
Who could say whether or not there was actually a "custom" forty years ago? That doesn't make much sense to me, and grandpa says it never happened, but I guess maybe something like that could have been. It's 70 CE so I don't have the internet to look it up and would have to take the story at it's word and my grandfather DID say that Pilate ordered him tortured and crucified and that the soldiers mocked him and that one of his own men--Judas--betrayed him to the authorities, so all of those parts of the story are corroborated by people who were there at the time, so I guess that part about the custom is also true and my grandpa just forgot about it, like he does most things these days since he's in his 80s.
Etc.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Unlike other reported miracle-workers, in the case of Jesus we have EVIDENCE from the time.
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copy-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
If that were true you'd give an example of the documentation. You have nothing but the dogmatic claims of your guru Richard Carrier -- that's your only documentation. There are no reported dead and risen personal savior messiahs in the ancient writings. Carrier never gives any ancient text describing those ancient personal savior messiahs or their miracle deeds.
Your only examples are of popular myths of the ancient deities, from centuries of mythologizing, not about individual historical persons who lived at a particular time and place and were reported in written accounts near the time, like we have for mainline history events, and like we have for Jesus in the Gospels describing his miracle acts in public places and seen by witnesses, in multiple sources dated roughly 25-70 years after the time of the reported events. These are well-documented claims of 1st-century events such as we don't have for any of Carrier's "dead and risen personal savior messiahs" you're pretending are documented.
The Jesus miracles are reported in 4 (5) documents during a period of 25-70 years from the time of the reported events. Written accounts about events only 50-100 years earlier are legitimate sources for those events, because these accounts are sources close to the generation when the events happened, and most of the ancient history record is based on such evidence.
What about Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Osiris, Wotan, etc.?
By contrast, miracle legends about the ancient deities, the pagan heroes and gods, are not reported in any sources close to when the alleged miracles happened, but date several centuries or thousands of years earlier than the earliest written sources we have. The reason you're not providing any written sources for Carrier's "dead and risen, personal savior messiahs with miraculous powers" is that he can't provide any sources for these claims and just expects you and other disciples of his to take his word for it that there were these reported miracle-workers or parallels to Jesus in the Gospels. But there are no ancient sources about such "savior messiahs" dating any time near the alleged events.
You obviously want to believe there were these other Jesus parallels, and so you just believe your guru without question, letting him spoon-feed his talking points to you, with no ancient sources for any of it.
Of course there were ancient myths, but no reported miracle acts by "messiah" persons in any written accounts near to the time of the alleged events. There's no "historicity" of the claimed miracle events if the only mention of them is 1000+ years after the events allegedly happened. We can consider any examples if you'd offer them, but you aren't doing that because there's nothing that can be seriously recognized as evidence for any such claims.
You could mention the case of the Emperor Vespasian who reportedly did a miracle, but you apparently realize that all such examples can be debunked or shown to fall within the normal mythologizing patterns we see with the various ancient legends. Whereas there is no way to explain the Jesus miracle acts as being a product of mythologizing, such as can be explained in the case of a popular or powerful ruler with celebrity status like the Emperor, who obviously was the topic of gossip throughout all the Roman lands.
If you refuse to deal with any particular examples and give the written evidence, you are just demonstrating the fact that the case of Jesus in the Gospels is the only one for which there is evidence and cannot be explained as fiction.
What "texts"? Only Carrier's laundry list of ancient gods and messiahs and saviors, and his claim that they are reported miracle-workers, but without any reference from ancient writings which report their miracle acts, such as the written accounts we have of the Jesus miracles? Don't just repeat that it's "documented" and yet still fail to give one example of the documentation. You are really just proving once again that there is no documentation, by neglecting to offer any. Your hollow words claiming it's documented are refuted by your failure to give any documentation, other than the published words of your 21st-century Jesus-debunker guru which you take on faith, without question. Why are you unable to question anything Carrier claims?
No, there are no citations of any ancient sources reporting Carrier's alleged miracle-worker messiahs and saviors. Just because he can give names of ancient gods or cites other contemporary debunker scholars like himself doesn't mean he's providing any ancient source for these claimed miracle-workers having some similarity to Jesus in the Gospels. There are no such citations in anything you've offered so far. Nothing but just quotes from your contemporary debunker guru upon which you depend solely, without questioning his authority.
If there were any evidence you would have given it by now. You've had numerous chances to offer such evidence and you've offered nothing, but only keep repeating the same contemporary quotes from your debunker guru as your only source for anything.
I'll help you by doing a little of your homework for you: There was a reported miracle-worker in the 1st century, Apollonius of Tyana, for whose miracles we have one source only, which dates about 150 years later. And there's also a Jewish teacher Hanina ben Dosa at the time who reportedly did some miracles, but the only source for him is the Talmud more than 200 years later.
These are the best examples of evidence for any "messiahs" of the 1st century. Except Jesus in the Gospels for whom we have 4 (5) sources spanning from about 55 AD to about 100 AD. And there are no reported miracle-workers in any literature going back about 500-600 years earlier. Unless you want to believe the nutball case of the slave-revolt leader Eunus, in Sicily, about 130 BC, who is said to have had the power to blow fire out from his mouth. The historian who reports this said he had some kind of trick, with chemicals, to give him this ability to shoot a flame out from his mouth.
But that's about the extent of it. Of course there's Jesus-debunker fanatic Matthew Ferguson who claims it was a miracle when Emperor Tiberius made a prediction which came true. So he thinks miracles at the time were "the rage" because he can cite a prophecy which came true -- so that's the example of a "miracle" similar to Jesus healing the blind and lepers and rising from the dead. How pathetic -- a prediction which came true is a miracle? That desperate Jesus-debunkers have to stoop this low to find a miracle "messiah" parallel only proves the point that there are no other serious examples of reported miracle-workers for which there is any evidence.
Then why don't you demonstrate that you learned something by giving us real evidence, instead of just regurgitating the words of your 21st-century guru? You should have learned that it's not science to just copy and paste some slogan from a debunker propagandist.
I'm giving real evidence: documents from the 1st century which report miracle events from that time, like we have evidence for other historical events, from writings 50-100 years after the events, which are relied on for most of our information about the ancient historical events. Did they teach you at Georgia Tech or Berkeley that it's unscientific to rely on written accounts near the time of the events? You need to explain your alternative historical science if you're claiming ancient documents are not "evidence" for what happened.
You're claiming there were cases of other "dead and risen, personal savior" messiahs similar to Jesus in the Gospels, or reported miracles attributed to them, but you offer nothing about this from any ancient document and just rely on your guru's talking points. Who taught you that propaganda slogans from a debunker fanatic celebrity are the scientific evidence for what happened in history, but not ancient documents from the time of the alleged events? You should explain how that is scientific. You don't offer any standard evidence, such as written accounts reporting such alleged events, so what principle of historical science are you relying on to make these claims? other than slogans from your modern-day debunker propagandist, who only waves his Ph.D in our face but never cites an ancient source?
But I asked you for documentation from written accounts reporting those alleged miracle acts. All you're giving is a list of names provided by Richard Carrier, who provides no written account from the time saying that these miracles were done by someone. We already know that Carrier and other 21st-century debunker gurus make these claims about the ancient reported miracles. What we need is their source for these claims, not just a repeating of the claims again and again, and the same laundry list of ancient deities again and again.
Where is the ancient text reporting that these ancient "savior messiahs" did those miracle acts? When did the alleged miracles happen, and what is the date of the written accounts reporting them? That's what I asked you for. What miracle event happened, WHEN did it happen, and WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE SOURCE reporting it?
I'm denying we have written accounts of any of the above deities/heroes which was written near to the time they lived, if they lived, and reporting miracle acts done by them.
I'm not denying there were ancient legends/deities like Apollo etc., but we don't know when they lived, or where, and we have no source reporting their miracles which dates anywhere near the time that they lived, if they lived.
I've checked every one of the above examples you named. The closest to a historical figure is Zalmoxis, but there is no miracle act attributed to him by Herodotus who is the only source we have. He might have been a teacher who made miracle claims, but no written account about him says he did any miracle acts.
The others on your list are either non-historical figures, or legendary figures for whom we have no accounts near to the time they lived. There's no source near to the time saying they did any miracles, such as we have -- i.e., 4 (5) sources -- for Jesus in the Gospels.
You're the one who has not done any "search" on these names -- all you've done is regurgitate these names from your guru-pundit without checking at all what the source is for them or what miracle acts they reportedly did.
No, you have not "put out" any source for these claims, so there's no "research" to do, other than listen again to your guru repeating his slogans without giving any evidence.
I checked all the above names, and there is no written account among the ancient sources which says any of them performed any miracle acts, other than traditions from hundreds/thousands of years after the time they lived, if they lived in history.
I asked you for an ancient source for any of the above listed "savior messiahs" which reports their miracle acts and which was written any time near to when they did their alleged miracles. I'd be satisfied if you'd offer ONLY ONE such ancient source for ONLY ONE of the above "savior messiahs" you claim are to be found in the ancient historical record. This source can be any written account by anyone claiming this recent "savior messiah" person did miracle acts. I.e., a source near to the time the "savior messiah" person lived in history, such as 100 years earlier. Or even 200 or 300 years earlier than the written account.
Are you a helpless child someone has to take by the hand? Here's a source text any 10-year-old could give, without doing a doctoral dissertation:
Everyone agrees that if this did happen, it was sometime around 30 AD, and the above written account dates from about 70 AD -- about 40 years later. That's all one needs to research. These are the basic facts about the source, whatever actually happened. We know this account exists and dates from about that time, and any child could determine these basic facts about it, without needing scholarly research, or writing a dissertation.
So, what's your problem that you can't find the simple answers about these reported miracle-workers you claim were "the rage" during this historical period? What miracle (reportedly) happened, when did it happen, and when is the source for it dated? If such miracle claims were "the rage" during that period, why isn't there any written text saying so and telling us what "miracles" they did -- just one of them. We have the written record for this one case, happening about 30 AD. So, where are the others? What's the written record of them? for just one case only?
You don't need to be a scholar. I've already done the homework for you, for some examples. I've mentioned the case of the Emperor Vespasian, who is reported to have done a miracle act some time around 70-80 AD and which is reported in Tacitus and Suetonius. These reports date from 40-60 years later, so are close enough to be taken seriously.
So stop giving excuses why you cannot do this simple homework which a kid could do. It should take less than an hour to get the facts about Osiris or the others -- just one case only, any one of them -- about when the reported "messiah savior" lived in history and when the account is dated which reports his/her/its miracle act(s).
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copy-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
If that were true you'd give an example of the documentation. You have nothing but the dogmatic claims of your guru Richard Carrier -- that's your only documentation. There are no reported dead and risen personal savior messiahs in the ancient writings. Carrier never gives any ancient text describing those ancient personal savior messiahs or their miracle deeds.
Your only examples are of popular myths of the ancient deities, from centuries of mythologizing, not about individual historical persons who lived at a particular time and place and were reported in written accounts near the time, like we have for mainline history events, and like we have for Jesus in the Gospels describing his miracle acts in public places and seen by witnesses, in multiple sources dated roughly 25-70 years after the time of the reported events. These are well-documented claims of 1st-century events such as we don't have for any of Carrier's "dead and risen personal savior messiahs" you're pretending are documented.
The Jesus miracles are reported in 4 (5) documents during a period of 25-70 years from the time of the reported events. Written accounts about events only 50-100 years earlier are legitimate sources for those events, because these accounts are sources close to the generation when the events happened, and most of the ancient history record is based on such evidence.
What about Zeus, Apollo, Hercules, Osiris, Wotan, etc.?
By contrast, miracle legends about the ancient deities, the pagan heroes and gods, are not reported in any sources close to when the alleged miracles happened, but date several centuries or thousands of years earlier than the earliest written sources we have. The reason you're not providing any written sources for Carrier's "dead and risen, personal savior messiahs with miraculous powers" is that he can't provide any sources for these claims and just expects you and other disciples of his to take his word for it that there were these reported miracle-workers or parallels to Jesus in the Gospels. But there are no ancient sources about such "savior messiahs" dating any time near the alleged events.
You obviously want to believe there were these other Jesus parallels, and so you just believe your guru without question, letting him spoon-feed his talking points to you, with no ancient sources for any of it.
Of course there were ancient myths, but no reported miracle acts by "messiah" persons in any written accounts near to the time of the alleged events. There's no "historicity" of the claimed miracle events if the only mention of them is 1000+ years after the events allegedly happened. We can consider any examples if you'd offer them, but you aren't doing that because there's nothing that can be seriously recognized as evidence for any such claims.
You could mention the case of the Emperor Vespasian who reportedly did a miracle, but you apparently realize that all such examples can be debunked or shown to fall within the normal mythologizing patterns we see with the various ancient legends. Whereas there is no way to explain the Jesus miracle acts as being a product of mythologizing, such as can be explained in the case of a popular or powerful ruler with celebrity status like the Emperor, who obviously was the topic of gossip throughout all the Roman lands.
If you refuse to deal with any particular examples and give the written evidence, you are just demonstrating the fact that the case of Jesus in the Gospels is the only one for which there is evidence and cannot be explained as fiction.
What "texts"? Only Carrier's laundry list of ancient gods and messiahs and saviors, and his claim that they are reported miracle-workers, but without any reference from ancient writings which report their miracle acts, such as the written accounts we have of the Jesus miracles? Don't just repeat that it's "documented" and yet still fail to give one example of the documentation. You are really just proving once again that there is no documentation, by neglecting to offer any. Your hollow words claiming it's documented are refuted by your failure to give any documentation, other than the published words of your 21st-century Jesus-debunker guru which you take on faith, without question. Why are you unable to question anything Carrier claims?
No, there are no citations of any ancient sources reporting Carrier's alleged miracle-worker messiahs and saviors. Just because he can give names of ancient gods or cites other contemporary debunker scholars like himself doesn't mean he's providing any ancient source for these claimed miracle-workers having some similarity to Jesus in the Gospels. There are no such citations in anything you've offered so far. Nothing but just quotes from your contemporary debunker guru upon which you depend solely, without questioning his authority.
If there were any evidence you would have given it by now. You've had numerous chances to offer such evidence and you've offered nothing, but only keep repeating the same contemporary quotes from your debunker guru as your only source for anything.
I'll help you by doing a little of your homework for you: There was a reported miracle-worker in the 1st century, Apollonius of Tyana, for whose miracles we have one source only, which dates about 150 years later. And there's also a Jewish teacher Hanina ben Dosa at the time who reportedly did some miracles, but the only source for him is the Talmud more than 200 years later.
These are the best examples of evidence for any "messiahs" of the 1st century. Except Jesus in the Gospels for whom we have 4 (5) sources spanning from about 55 AD to about 100 AD. And there are no reported miracle-workers in any literature going back about 500-600 years earlier. Unless you want to believe the nutball case of the slave-revolt leader Eunus, in Sicily, about 130 BC, who is said to have had the power to blow fire out from his mouth. The historian who reports this said he had some kind of trick, with chemicals, to give him this ability to shoot a flame out from his mouth.
But that's about the extent of it. Of course there's Jesus-debunker fanatic Matthew Ferguson who claims it was a miracle when Emperor Tiberius made a prediction which came true. So he thinks miracles at the time were "the rage" because he can cite a prophecy which came true -- so that's the example of a "miracle" similar to Jesus healing the blind and lepers and rising from the dead. How pathetic -- a prediction which came true is a miracle? That desperate Jesus-debunkers have to stoop this low to find a miracle "messiah" parallel only proves the point that there are no other serious examples of reported miracle-workers for which there is any evidence.
Then why don't you demonstrate that you learned something by giving us real evidence, instead of just regurgitating the words of your 21st-century guru? You should have learned that it's not science to just copy and paste some slogan from a debunker propagandist.
I'm giving real evidence: documents from the 1st century which report miracle events from that time, like we have evidence for other historical events, from writings 50-100 years after the events, which are relied on for most of our information about the ancient historical events. Did they teach you at Georgia Tech or Berkeley that it's unscientific to rely on written accounts near the time of the events? You need to explain your alternative historical science if you're claiming ancient documents are not "evidence" for what happened.
You're claiming there were cases of other "dead and risen, personal savior" messiahs similar to Jesus in the Gospels, or reported miracles attributed to them, but you offer nothing about this from any ancient document and just rely on your guru's talking points. Who taught you that propaganda slogans from a debunker fanatic celebrity are the scientific evidence for what happened in history, but not ancient documents from the time of the alleged events? You should explain how that is scientific. You don't offer any standard evidence, such as written accounts reporting such alleged events, so what principle of historical science are you relying on to make these claims? other than slogans from your modern-day debunker propagandist, who only waves his Ph.D in our face but never cites an ancient source?
But I asked you for documentation from written accounts reporting those alleged miracle acts. All you're giving is a list of names provided by Richard Carrier, who provides no written account from the time saying that these miracles were done by someone. We already know that Carrier and other 21st-century debunker gurus make these claims about the ancient reported miracles. What we need is their source for these claims, not just a repeating of the claims again and again, and the same laundry list of ancient deities again and again.
Where is the ancient text reporting that these ancient "savior messiahs" did those miracle acts? When did the alleged miracles happen, and what is the date of the written accounts reporting them? That's what I asked you for. What miracle event happened, WHEN did it happen, and WHAT IS THE DATE OF THE SOURCE reporting it?
I'm denying we have written accounts of any of the above deities/heroes which was written near to the time they lived, if they lived, and reporting miracle acts done by them.
I'm not denying there were ancient legends/deities like Apollo etc., but we don't know when they lived, or where, and we have no source reporting their miracles which dates anywhere near the time that they lived, if they lived.
I've checked every one of the above examples you named. The closest to a historical figure is Zalmoxis, but there is no miracle act attributed to him by Herodotus who is the only source we have. He might have been a teacher who made miracle claims, but no written account about him says he did any miracle acts.
The others on your list are either non-historical figures, or legendary figures for whom we have no accounts near to the time they lived. There's no source near to the time saying they did any miracles, such as we have -- i.e., 4 (5) sources -- for Jesus in the Gospels.
You're the one who has not done any "search" on these names -- all you've done is regurgitate these names from your guru-pundit without checking at all what the source is for them or what miracle acts they reportedly did.
No, you have not "put out" any source for these claims, so there's no "research" to do, other than listen again to your guru repeating his slogans without giving any evidence.
I checked all the above names, and there is no written account among the ancient sources which says any of them performed any miracle acts, other than traditions from hundreds/thousands of years after the time they lived, if they lived in history.
I asked you for an ancient source for any of the above listed "savior messiahs" which reports their miracle acts and which was written any time near to when they did their alleged miracles. I'd be satisfied if you'd offer ONLY ONE such ancient source for ONLY ONE of the above "savior messiahs" you claim are to be found in the ancient historical record. This source can be any written account by anyone claiming this recent "savior messiah" person did miracle acts. I.e., a source near to the time the "savior messiah" person lived in history, such as 100 years earlier. Or even 200 or 300 years earlier than the written account.
Are you a helpless child someone has to take by the hand? Here's a source text any 10-year-old could give, without doing a doctoral dissertation:
Everyone agrees that if this did happen, it was sometime around 30 AD, and the above written account dates from about 70 AD -- about 40 years later. That's all one needs to research. These are the basic facts about the source, whatever actually happened. We know this account exists and dates from about that time, and any child could determine these basic facts about it, without needing scholarly research, or writing a dissertation.
So, what's your problem that you can't find the simple answers about these reported miracle-workers you claim were "the rage" during this historical period? What miracle (reportedly) happened, when did it happen, and when is the source for it dated? If such miracle claims were "the rage" during that period, why isn't there any written text saying so and telling us what "miracles" they did -- just one of them. We have the written record for this one case, happening about 30 AD. So, where are the others? What's the written record of them? for just one case only?
You don't need to be a scholar. I've already done the homework for you, for some examples. I've mentioned the case of the Emperor Vespasian, who is reported to have done a miracle act some time around 70-80 AD and which is reported in Tacitus and Suetonius. These reports date from 40-60 years later, so are close enough to be taken seriously.
So stop giving excuses why you cannot do this simple homework which a kid could do. It should take less than an hour to get the facts about Osiris or the others -- just one case only, any one of them -- about when the reported "messiah savior" lived in history and when the account is dated which reports his/her/its miracle act(s).
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
Last edited:
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Irrelevant part:
Relevant part:
Once again you make the exact same false argument. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Lump said:
Relevant part:
Once again you make the exact same false argument. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Unlike other reported miracle-workers, in the case of Jesus we have EVIDENCE from the time.
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copy-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
I asked for the evidence, based on ancient written accounts, but all you're doing is repeating the slogans you copy and paste from your guru Richard Carrier, and his list, which you're parroting back at us without having any understanding of who those "messiah saviors" were or what alleged miracles they supposedly did. Where is "the rage" of "messiah saviors" of the time?
No one has given any ancient source which reports the miracle acts of any of the above listed "savior messiahs" you claim were believed in as miracle-workers who lived in history.
The time and place are irrelevant. There are a million "myths" from every time and place imaginable. Saying a myth existed somewhere at some time means nothing. You're in the same general culture which produced Bugs Bunny, so then are you another Bugs Bunny, or do you share something in common with this cartoon character? The miracles of Jesus in the Gospels have no more connection to those "savior messiahs" than you have to Bugs Bunny.
Of course there were some "myths" near the time of Jesus, before and after, and also during every time since then and also today. And you can find "similarities" from one myth/legend to another, just as there are "similarities" between various historical persons, or events, or places.
The only "similarities" are some symbols which Christianity adopted, but not anything about the Jesus miracle acts. There is nothing about the miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels which has any similarity to the "savior messiah" myths you listed.
And especially there is no evidence for any miracle claims contained in the myths you're citing. There are no written accounts from the time of the alleged events which say the miracle events happened. Any claimed miracle events appear only in documents written hundreds or thousands of years later, long after the alleged event. Because of this striking DISSIMILARITY, it is reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle acts did happen, being reported in multiple written documents from the time, while it is not reasonable to believe miracle claims in these myths you're listing, because there is no evidence from the time, i.e., no written account which says those miracle events happened.
There are millions/billions of "similarities" between different cultures, different belief systems, different stories or legends, different geographical places, different time periods. In a few cases maybe a "similarity" has some significance, but usually not. Some common symbols might be noteworthy -- such as BAPTISM as a ritual existing prior to Jesus and John the Baptist, also BLOOD ATONEMENT ideas in earlier religions. What do these "similarities" prove, assuming some of them stand out as distinct? And what do they tell us about the miracles of Jesus?
If there are really noteworthy "similarities" and they prove anything, it is this: Christianity, or Christ-belief, which we see originating in the events described in the Gospels, had an element or feature which attracted symbols from other cultures, or other religions and beliefs, because there was something about the original Christ person requiring an explanation, or demanding some symbolic identification with the common religious perceptions of the time, and those belief systems attached themselves to Christ, or to Christ-belief, to make the Christ event explainable within the worldview of those earlier beliefs or traditions or symbols. There is no other reported person during all those centuries who was adopted by all those earlier traditions, who was made into the "Messiah" and also the sacrificial lamb and also the Logos, also God, Son of God, Son of Man, etc., to be connected to all those earlier symbols.
Why did everyone, in many different cultures, different philosophies, different traditions, all find it necessary to seize upon this Christ figure to make him the object of their symbols and traditions? Why only this one person and not any of several dozen others? or hundred others? like John the Baptist, etc.? Why did so many different religionists, from every direction, all jump onto the Christ bandwagon and make him their ultimate hero object or God-Man or savior or Messiah?
That's the only meaning -- if there is any meaning -- to the idea that there were "striking similarities" between Christ belief and the many previous cultures or traditions or symbols or practices. They all had to adopt the Christ figure, to get him into their system of ideas. Not giving up their previous ideas, which is difficult, but rather to adapt them to the new Christ person, because he was special and had to be taken into account, for some reason. But for what reason? Why not many other interesting persons also? Why only the Jesus person and no others? Why is there no James the Just Messiah movement? or Hillel Messiah? or John the Baptist Messiah? and so on?
Why was only Jesus chosen as the MARTYR figure?
John the Baptist, e.g., could easily have been made into a "sacrificial lamb" or Lamb of God figure, shedding his blood for the sins of man. So, why is there no cult saying he's the one who shed his blood for our sins? the sheep led to the slaughter, the Suffering Servant?
Or why not James the Just, who also was martyred?
There are easily dozens of other historical figures, or hundreds -- heroes and martyrs -- who were important and could be identified with the earlier cultural beliefs and traditions and become the object of a new religion or cult. Why none of them? Why did only this one Christ person have to become the great Cosmic Figure or "Light" through whom Enlightenment would be offered to "lost souls"? And what is the "Good News" he brought, which is an identifying name or symbol unique to this new Christ belief, a DISSIMILARITY not borrowed from the earlier culture?
You can't obsess on the "similarities" without also paying attention to the DISsimilar part. So, how do you explain both the similarities (the elements which got attached to the new Jesus figure) AND the dissimilarities (the new elements unique to the Jesus Christ of 30 AD)?
The answer stares us in the face, repeated many times in the Gospel accounts: it must be the power which he demonstrated in the miracle acts, reported in the writings, unlike we have elsewhere. There is no other written record of anyone doing such acts, even though there were some charlatans making miracle claims or promises which no one took seriously and so were never recorded. Why was only this one believed but no others?
If he actually delivered, performing real miracle acts, unlike all the others, that explains it. But if he was just another charlatan like the others, or all the stories are fraudulent because someone "made shit up" etc., why do we have only this one case of such widespread fraud being published and transmitted? Why didn't some of the others also accomplish such a hoax? Why did ONLY THIS ONE miracle cult get its claims published and spread around the region? and get its claimed miracle-worker magnified into "the Messiah" to the exclusion of all others?
You believe that only because your guru Richard Carrier says so, not because there are any ancient accounts telling you this, reporting the miracle events, such as are reported to us in the Gospel accounts. You don't know any miracle-worker accounts which were first about a CELESTIAL being only who later became "transformed" into a flesh-and-blood person in history. You have no source for this theory other than your guru-pundit who gives you no evidence for it.
It's not true that the myths begin with stories of some celestial being which is then transformed into an earthly historical figure. Most of them (or all those which were believed to be real historical persons) began with a real person in history who became a legendary figure, i.e., starting from someone real, far back in history -- and then the later legends evolved, attributing miracle events to the original historical person.
An undeniable example of this is the Santa Claus legend. We know FOR CERTAIN that this one began with a real historical person, i.e., St. Nicholas, who really lived and had some resemblance to the later legendary character, but without the miracles. So at least this example contradicts Carrier's claim that the legend begins with some imagined celestial being who later was transformed into an earthly physical human.
But for the ancient pagan legends there is no way to prove whether the "celestial being" came first or the historical human got transformed into a miracle legend. Carrier has no evidence for any of his examples that the alleged historical figure was preceded by a celestial being belief. He claims this, but it's only a dogma without any evidence for it. It's not the consensus of historians generally that this is how the legends evolved.
But we do have evidence, or PROOF, for at least the Santa Claus legend, and probably also for some others, that the earthly physical human came first, in history, followed by the legend and the miracle myths which evolved over many centuries.
No, such claims did NOT exist, about any historical person performing miracles, other than ancient heroes/deities who lived centuries/thousands of years earlier than the myth (if they did live), or earlier than the earliest written account.
There are many miracle claims.
But there are no claims in the ancient history record (anytime prior to 100 AD, e.g.) of miracle-workers reported in documents near to the time of the alleged event(s). (Virtually none until 1000 or 1500 AD, however, one can argue examples claiming otherwise, e.g., St. Genevieve, but before 100 AD there are NO CASES at all of reported miracle-workers in documents dated near to the time of the alleged miracles. Examples of Buddha or Krishna or Elijah or Elisha or Moses, etc., are all examples not reported in any accounts until several centuries after the alleged miracle-worker lived.)
"extraordinary"?
Miracle claims require EXTRA evidence, such as extra sources confirming that the events did happen. Like all unusual claims, or claims which seem incredible. If there are 2 or 3 extra sources, the claims become more credible, and it's reasonable to believe this extra evidence, even though there may still be doubt, and one might reasonably disbelieve the claim if they think the extra evidence is insufficient. But if you're honest, you must admit that there is extra evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus, beyond what is necessary for ordinary events in the historical record. And the only problem is whether this extra evidence, 4 (5) sources rather than only 1 or 2, is sufficient in order to believe the reported events happened.
The slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is only a cliché and a play on words. A more scientific rule is that the unusual claim requires extra evidence, meaning a greater quantity of evidence, not that the nature of the evidence has to be basically different. We just need MORE evidence, more ordinary evidence, which we do have for the Jesus miracles.
(This Wall of Text to be continued)
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copy-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
I asked for the evidence, based on ancient written accounts, but all you're doing is repeating the slogans you copy and paste from your guru Richard Carrier, and his list, which you're parroting back at us without having any understanding of who those "messiah saviors" were or what alleged miracles they supposedly did. Where is "the rage" of "messiah saviors" of the time?
No one has given any ancient source which reports the miracle acts of any of the above listed "savior messiahs" you claim were believed in as miracle-workers who lived in history.
The time and place are irrelevant. There are a million "myths" from every time and place imaginable. Saying a myth existed somewhere at some time means nothing. You're in the same general culture which produced Bugs Bunny, so then are you another Bugs Bunny, or do you share something in common with this cartoon character? The miracles of Jesus in the Gospels have no more connection to those "savior messiahs" than you have to Bugs Bunny.
Of course there were some "myths" near the time of Jesus, before and after, and also during every time since then and also today. And you can find "similarities" from one myth/legend to another, just as there are "similarities" between various historical persons, or events, or places.
The only "similarities" are some symbols which Christianity adopted, but not anything about the Jesus miracle acts. There is nothing about the miracle acts of Jesus in the Gospels which has any similarity to the "savior messiah" myths you listed.
And especially there is no evidence for any miracle claims contained in the myths you're citing. There are no written accounts from the time of the alleged events which say the miracle events happened. Any claimed miracle events appear only in documents written hundreds or thousands of years later, long after the alleged event. Because of this striking DISSIMILARITY, it is reasonable to believe the Jesus miracle acts did happen, being reported in multiple written documents from the time, while it is not reasonable to believe miracle claims in these myths you're listing, because there is no evidence from the time, i.e., no written account which says those miracle events happened.
There are millions/billions of "similarities" between different cultures, different belief systems, different stories or legends, different geographical places, different time periods. In a few cases maybe a "similarity" has some significance, but usually not. Some common symbols might be noteworthy -- such as BAPTISM as a ritual existing prior to Jesus and John the Baptist, also BLOOD ATONEMENT ideas in earlier religions. What do these "similarities" prove, assuming some of them stand out as distinct? And what do they tell us about the miracles of Jesus?
If there are really noteworthy "similarities" and they prove anything, it is this: Christianity, or Christ-belief, which we see originating in the events described in the Gospels, had an element or feature which attracted symbols from other cultures, or other religions and beliefs, because there was something about the original Christ person requiring an explanation, or demanding some symbolic identification with the common religious perceptions of the time, and those belief systems attached themselves to Christ, or to Christ-belief, to make the Christ event explainable within the worldview of those earlier beliefs or traditions or symbols. There is no other reported person during all those centuries who was adopted by all those earlier traditions, who was made into the "Messiah" and also the sacrificial lamb and also the Logos, also God, Son of God, Son of Man, etc., to be connected to all those earlier symbols.
Why did everyone, in many different cultures, different philosophies, different traditions, all find it necessary to seize upon this Christ figure to make him the object of their symbols and traditions? Why only this one person and not any of several dozen others? or hundred others? like John the Baptist, etc.? Why did so many different religionists, from every direction, all jump onto the Christ bandwagon and make him their ultimate hero object or God-Man or savior or Messiah?
That's the only meaning -- if there is any meaning -- to the idea that there were "striking similarities" between Christ belief and the many previous cultures or traditions or symbols or practices. They all had to adopt the Christ figure, to get him into their system of ideas. Not giving up their previous ideas, which is difficult, but rather to adapt them to the new Christ person, because he was special and had to be taken into account, for some reason. But for what reason? Why not many other interesting persons also? Why only the Jesus person and no others? Why is there no James the Just Messiah movement? or Hillel Messiah? or John the Baptist Messiah? and so on?
Why was only Jesus chosen as the MARTYR figure?
John the Baptist, e.g., could easily have been made into a "sacrificial lamb" or Lamb of God figure, shedding his blood for the sins of man. So, why is there no cult saying he's the one who shed his blood for our sins? the sheep led to the slaughter, the Suffering Servant?
Or why not James the Just, who also was martyred?
There are easily dozens of other historical figures, or hundreds -- heroes and martyrs -- who were important and could be identified with the earlier cultural beliefs and traditions and become the object of a new religion or cult. Why none of them? Why did only this one Christ person have to become the great Cosmic Figure or "Light" through whom Enlightenment would be offered to "lost souls"? And what is the "Good News" he brought, which is an identifying name or symbol unique to this new Christ belief, a DISSIMILARITY not borrowed from the earlier culture?
You can't obsess on the "similarities" without also paying attention to the DISsimilar part. So, how do you explain both the similarities (the elements which got attached to the new Jesus figure) AND the dissimilarities (the new elements unique to the Jesus Christ of 30 AD)?
The answer stares us in the face, repeated many times in the Gospel accounts: it must be the power which he demonstrated in the miracle acts, reported in the writings, unlike we have elsewhere. There is no other written record of anyone doing such acts, even though there were some charlatans making miracle claims or promises which no one took seriously and so were never recorded. Why was only this one believed but no others?
If he actually delivered, performing real miracle acts, unlike all the others, that explains it. But if he was just another charlatan like the others, or all the stories are fraudulent because someone "made shit up" etc., why do we have only this one case of such widespread fraud being published and transmitted? Why didn't some of the others also accomplish such a hoax? Why did ONLY THIS ONE miracle cult get its claims published and spread around the region? and get its claimed miracle-worker magnified into "the Messiah" to the exclusion of all others?
You believe that only because your guru Richard Carrier says so, not because there are any ancient accounts telling you this, reporting the miracle events, such as are reported to us in the Gospel accounts. You don't know any miracle-worker accounts which were first about a CELESTIAL being only who later became "transformed" into a flesh-and-blood person in history. You have no source for this theory other than your guru-pundit who gives you no evidence for it.
It's not true that the myths begin with stories of some celestial being which is then transformed into an earthly historical figure. Most of them (or all those which were believed to be real historical persons) began with a real person in history who became a legendary figure, i.e., starting from someone real, far back in history -- and then the later legends evolved, attributing miracle events to the original historical person.
An undeniable example of this is the Santa Claus legend. We know FOR CERTAIN that this one began with a real historical person, i.e., St. Nicholas, who really lived and had some resemblance to the later legendary character, but without the miracles. So at least this example contradicts Carrier's claim that the legend begins with some imagined celestial being who later was transformed into an earthly physical human.
But for the ancient pagan legends there is no way to prove whether the "celestial being" came first or the historical human got transformed into a miracle legend. Carrier has no evidence for any of his examples that the alleged historical figure was preceded by a celestial being belief. He claims this, but it's only a dogma without any evidence for it. It's not the consensus of historians generally that this is how the legends evolved.
But we do have evidence, or PROOF, for at least the Santa Claus legend, and probably also for some others, that the earthly physical human came first, in history, followed by the legend and the miracle myths which evolved over many centuries.
No, such claims did NOT exist, about any historical person performing miracles, other than ancient heroes/deities who lived centuries/thousands of years earlier than the myth (if they did live), or earlier than the earliest written account.
There are many miracle claims.
But there are no claims in the ancient history record (anytime prior to 100 AD, e.g.) of miracle-workers reported in documents near to the time of the alleged event(s). (Virtually none until 1000 or 1500 AD, however, one can argue examples claiming otherwise, e.g., St. Genevieve, but before 100 AD there are NO CASES at all of reported miracle-workers in documents dated near to the time of the alleged miracles. Examples of Buddha or Krishna or Elijah or Elisha or Moses, etc., are all examples not reported in any accounts until several centuries after the alleged miracle-worker lived.)
"extraordinary"?
Miracle claims require EXTRA evidence, such as extra sources confirming that the events did happen. Like all unusual claims, or claims which seem incredible. If there are 2 or 3 extra sources, the claims become more credible, and it's reasonable to believe this extra evidence, even though there may still be doubt, and one might reasonably disbelieve the claim if they think the extra evidence is insufficient. But if you're honest, you must admit that there is extra evidence for the miracle acts of Jesus, beyond what is necessary for ordinary events in the historical record. And the only problem is whether this extra evidence, 4 (5) sources rather than only 1 or 2, is sufficient in order to believe the reported events happened.
The slogan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is only a cliché and a play on words. A more scientific rule is that the unusual claim requires extra evidence, meaning a greater quantity of evidence, not that the nature of the evidence has to be basically different. We just need MORE evidence, more ordinary evidence, which we do have for the Jesus miracles.
(This Wall of Text to be continued)
Atheos
Veteran Member
No. The claim that something unbelievable happened requires unimpeachable evidence or reasonable people withhold belief. Everything else you keep saying is untrue.
The claim that I own a yacht worth $100 million, or even a supercar worth $2 million would be unusual. Although there is a lot of evidence that such yachts and supercars exist, there is also strong evidence that very few people in the world have the financial resources to own such toys. There is nothing supernatural about the claim, and the claim could be accepted as true if supporting documentation is provided, like a title of registration in my name.
The claim that a decomposing corpse came back to life and flew into the sky under its own power is extraordinary. Not only is it extraordinary, it requires a violation of the laws of nature, and intervention by a supernatural entity from outside our visible universe. We have an enormous amount of very high quality evidence that corpses don't come back to life and then fly off into space. In fact, there is no verifiable evidence that such a thing has ever happened in the history of our species. Not even once. And everything we understand about human physiology and anatomy and aerodynamics and gravity tells us flying corpses are impossible.
Now let us (once again) examine the evidence for the claim that the decomposing body of Jesus came back to life and then flew off into space. In support of this claim we have the Gospels, the earliest of which was probably written 50 to 70 years after these alleged events. The later Gospels often repeat the same stories, and often with significant changes. The authors of the Gospels are unknown. There is no contemporary evidence to support the supernatural claims of the Gospels. And the Gospels available to us today have been copied over and over, and translated over and over, to the point that it is practically impossible to tell what was actually included in the original Gospels when they were written in the first and second centuries. And finally, this alleged supernatural creature, that Christians call God, has never bothered to show up in person and tell us that it exists. And there is no verifiable evidence for its existence, just like all the other gods humans have invented throughout history.
Moreover, there is an enormous volume of evidence that tells us that humans make up stories about supernatural events involving supernatural entities all the time, and that this behavior continues to this day.
The available evidence does not rise to the required level to satisfy your claim that the supernatural stories of the Bible are probably true. There exists an innumerable number of explanations as to how these stories found their way into the Gospels, and none of them involve supernatural actors or the violation of the laws of nature. Therefore, the probability that the supernatural stories are not based on real historical events, but are simply fabrications, innocent or otherwise, is extremely high. Are you really unable to understand this simple logic?
TLDR: In order to demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is true, you would need to eliminate all naturalistic explanations first. This is because naturalistic explanations, like people being mistaken, or people making up stories, are far, far, far more probable than explanations involving supernatural intervention by entities from outside the universe.
Last edited:
Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Unlike other reported miracle-workers, in the case of Jesus we have EVIDENCE from the time.
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copied-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
I've repeatedly given it. The Gospel accounts are written accounts from the 1st century near to when the alleged events happened. We do not have such evidence for other miracle claims from ancient history. Written accounts saying an event happened are the main evidence we use to establish historical events generally. Open your history book and randomly pick a page and randomly put your finger on any sentence. Virtually every time that sentence tells you something which is known from ancient documents, near the time, which say the event happened. There are a few exceptions, but they are a tiny minority of the established historical facts.
The Gospel accounts, and Paul epistles, mainly. ALL written documents from the time are evidence for what happened during the time. No written documents from the time can be excluded, as you're trying to censor this one group of writings to arbitrarily exclude them as evidence.
We don't have that information for most of our known historical facts. Though there's reasonable conjecture about some of their sources, much (most) is not known, for our mainline history, which does not discredit those accounts. Some famous historians give sources, but only for some of their facts, not all. And much of the credible written record for historical events does not give the sources -- and even when they do, there's no way to determine the reliability of their claimed sources, or whether the direct source we're relying on is giving us an honest report on his sources. There's much subjectivity in our judging the credibility of our direct and indirect sources.
No expert has ever proved scientifically which sources are credible and which ones not. At best we can make pretty good guesses about this. And only a fool thinks we can toss out certain documents as fiction based on any scientifically-proven methodology to separate the fiction sources from the factual.
It is very subjective and conjectural to judge if the source is factual. There is no scientific basis to prove that one source is factual and another is not. Except that sources can be compared, and those which are contradicted by other sources can be given less credibility. But even if a source is less credible at one point, that does not undermine the rest of it. ALL sources contain some mixture of fact and fiction. We have to figure out the factual part.
The Jesus miracles are not contradicted by any other sources from the time. The only argument against them is the dogma that miracles cannot ever happen. We have evidence saying they happened, and no evidence saying they did not happen, other than that general dogma imposing a ban on all possible miracle claims of any time or any place or from any possible source. Science and reason does not impose any such dogma on us to ban all possible miracle claims. Rather, logic requires us to question ALL sources, treating them all with skepticism, and to include ALL the ancient documents as sources to use for determining what happened.
You have not performed any more "analyses" than I have to establish what is factual and what is not. You haven't given any rule other than to arbitrarily discard the NT documents as having no credibility for anything factual, even though today's historians do use these documents to determine the historical facts of the 1st century, in that region.
You can cite your favorite Jesus-debunker-guru and say he's an authority on what is fact and what is not. But that is not a scientific principle for separating fact from fiction. That's just your prejudice and nothing more. Your prejudice, or that of your debunker guru, is not the scientific basis for separating historical fact from fiction.
ALL the documents which have survived from ancient times are sources for determining the historical facts. Each claim in the documents has to be considered, and all questions asked about the claim, such as how it compares to all the other claims, in other documents. If the claim is contradicted in other documents, that makes it less credible. The Jesus miracle acts are not contradicted in any other documents of the time.
You mean cults, plural. You apparently have spent LESS time on it than you pretend, because if you had you would know that there were many Christian cults, not just one.
One point I've made repeatedly about the early Christ-belief cults is that they disagreed with each other, and there were many conflicting groups or cults which rallied around the Jesus of 30 AD. And I've asked why so many divergent factions would all rally around the same figure, considering that they had conflicting beliefs. Why instead wouldn't they each seek out their own separate "messiah" figure so as to not get confused with the other factions?
Best explanation: They all believed this one person did the miracle acts, and so they all wanted to connect to him somehow, make him their great Symbol, claim him as their authority. And why did so many conflicting factions believe this one person had done miracles? Probably because there was so much evidence, so many reports of it, i.e., because it was apparently true.
You have not addressed this point. So, why don't you explain why so many divergent groups all claimed this same Christ, or Jesus of 30 AD, to be the "Messiah" (or "Logos" or "Son of God" etc.)?
I finally answered it:
Despite the divergences, and dissimilar interpretations, all the evidence is that the risen Christ of Paul is the same as the Christ of Mark. There's no contradiction between them, just separate interpretations of the same person in history. And Paul ignores almost everything biographical or historical, while Mark reports (his version of) the history and biographical elements.
I'll keep "pretending" it (and flapping my tongue defiantly) as long as you keep pretending that "miracle-working messiah saviors" similar to Jesus were "all the rage" in that period, even though you can't cite any example from an ancient text which reports their miracle acts.
Then why do you automatically believe him without requiring any ancient written source?
Of course you do. A True Believer is always persuaded by the "arguments" of his/her guru-Prophet-pundit authority figure.
He gives no ancient written source reporting the miracles of any of those "savior messiahs" he keeps listing and which you slurp up from the trough without ever questioning it. To meet the test he has to cite the ancient text, written near the time the events reportedly happened, saying what miracle acts were performed (i.e., reported in the sources as being performed) by these "savior messiahs" in the list you're taking on faith. Like the Mark text I gave earlier, written about 40 years after the reported event. Or Paul reporting the Resurrection about 25 years later. Why can't Carrier give any such evidence reporting the miracles of those "savior messiahs" which were "the rage" back then?
How many more Walls of Text must I post explaining that I want an ancient text source reporting the miracles of those "savior messiahs" on your list? I've asked for this many times, and no one provides any ancient source telling us about those miracles, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospels.
My prophecy is that you will not quote any ancient text reporting the miracle acts of any of the "messiah savior" miracle-workers you claim were "the rage" in those times. Such as I have posted from the 1st-century documents reporting the Jesus miracle acts. But you will continue to post your copy-and-paste excerpts from the sermons of your modern debunker-guru-pundit Richard Carrier, and continue to deny that he is your infallible guru Prophet Source of Truth, while still not ever checking for yourself any ancient literature about the miracle acts performed by the "messiah saviors" on his list, which you just accept on blind faith from your guru which you deny is your guru.
"similar"? You admit then that there is no written evidence for any miracle acts those "messiah saviors" did. By "similar" all you mean is that there were some ancient miracle claims. So all miracles are "similar" to all the others, making the miracles of Jesus "similar" to all other "miracle" claims. And yet the miracles of Jesus are reported in actual written documents near the time they allegedly happened, while no others are. So you admit this DISsimilarity. In this one case we have normal EVIDENCE for the alleged miracle event, while we do not have evidence for any of the others. You're admitting this.
Everyone knows there were millions of myths, not only then, but all through history and everywhere, not just "in that part of the world" at that time. But there is no written record anywhere saying a miracle act was done by those "savior messiahs" such as we have for Jesus in the Gospel accounts reporting events of the 1st century.
There's evidence that many "myths" existed, but no evidence saying anyone performed a miracle act, other than traditions which evolved over many centuries/thousands of years as a result of mythologizing. Like the Santa Claus myth which required 1500 years to evolve.
What you can "establish" is that there are millions/billions of "myths" everywhere, claims that something sensational happened, and much or most of it is fictional. There is no special phenomenon of "miracle-working, flesh-and-blood personal savior myths" peculiar to "that part of the world" as opposed to other parts or other times in history. With the billions of myths everywhere throughout all times and places, you can find whatever symbol you're looking for in this or that place or culture and claim "similarities" here and there, wherever you want to promote someone's latest goofy theory about gods or superstitions and popular mythologies. But you don't disprove anything about the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels by simply running out long laundry lists of myths, even millions of them, no matter where or when your guru claims to have found them.
If your point is that there are other similar cases like Jesus from that historical period, then you have to show the evidence for them, such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts, reported in documents near to the time, such as is required for normal historical events. But instead of giving this evidence, you only keep regurgitating quotes from your modern-day debunker-guru.
You cannot "establish" that there was any other reported miracle-worker for whom we have evidence from the time, in the written record, stating what miracle acts he did (or she or it).
According to your guru-pundit authority. But you can't show one example from any written documents of the time.
What you can claim is that similar terminology or names or symbols were used as they became attached to the Christ belief, or cults, getting connected to this new belief which had to be explained somehow, because this new belief, based on miracle claims for which there was evidence (unlike all the others), had to now be taken into account and identified in terms or symbols already part of the popular thinking or culture. The society does not abandon its earlier symbols, but tries to adapt them to the new reality confronting it.
The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, reveals how some early Christians were identifying with pagan symbols already popular, which was condemned by this author. There are also indications of this in Paul's letters. This illustrates how the current popular traditions are so difficult to abandon and instead are incorporated one way or another into the new belief.
"remarkable"?
What matters is that there's no other reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence. No one is giving any example of one, even though they're saying miracle-workers (or claims about them) were "the rage" and "a dime a dozen" during the time.
That no one can cite any other example shows that there isn't any other example. There's not even anything close. To have 4 (5) sources in less than 100 years after the event is very good evidence for a reported event from those times.
You can say it's not "remarkable" that miracle acts were performed by someone in this one case only (the only case for which there is evidence), but it was reported as "good news" by Mark. Whether it was "remarkable" or not, you have to explain this "good news" term (euangelion), used by Mark and by Paul in the epistles. They must have thought there was something "remarkable" going on to use this term over and over again. Prior to the NT, the term euangelion (or similar terminology in other languages) did not have any significance. So, why did it suddenly take on such significance here? Isn't it obvious that someone at the time thought there was something "remarkable" which had happened here?
He's the only case for whom we have evidence. I.e., the same kind of evidence we have for 99% of our historical record, i.e., written accounts near the time saying the miracle events happened, like for any event one claims happened. There are no other reported "messiah saviors" for which we have such evidence. Whether it's "treated differently" or not, it is a fact that in this case we have evidence, and for all the others there is no evidence.
Why is there such extreme desperation to insist that this is not so, and that we have "evidence" of some kind for many other "savior messiahs" which were "all the rage" and "a dime a dozen" in the ancient world? Yet no one can produce any such evidence.
And evidence does matter in deciding what to believe.
I.e., written accounts near the time when he allegedly did his miracle acts. And not just copied-and-pasted talking points from modern-day debunker gurus.
(continued from previous Wall of Text)
I've repeatedly given it. The Gospel accounts are written accounts from the 1st century near to when the alleged events happened. We do not have such evidence for other miracle claims from ancient history. Written accounts saying an event happened are the main evidence we use to establish historical events generally. Open your history book and randomly pick a page and randomly put your finger on any sentence. Virtually every time that sentence tells you something which is known from ancient documents, near the time, which say the event happened. There are a few exceptions, but they are a tiny minority of the established historical facts.
The Gospel accounts, and Paul epistles, mainly. ALL written documents from the time are evidence for what happened during the time. No written documents from the time can be excluded, as you're trying to censor this one group of writings to arbitrarily exclude them as evidence.
We don't have that information for most of our known historical facts. Though there's reasonable conjecture about some of their sources, much (most) is not known, for our mainline history, which does not discredit those accounts. Some famous historians give sources, but only for some of their facts, not all. And much of the credible written record for historical events does not give the sources -- and even when they do, there's no way to determine the reliability of their claimed sources, or whether the direct source we're relying on is giving us an honest report on his sources. There's much subjectivity in our judging the credibility of our direct and indirect sources.
No expert has ever proved scientifically which sources are credible and which ones not. At best we can make pretty good guesses about this. And only a fool thinks we can toss out certain documents as fiction based on any scientifically-proven methodology to separate the fiction sources from the factual.
It is very subjective and conjectural to judge if the source is factual. There is no scientific basis to prove that one source is factual and another is not. Except that sources can be compared, and those which are contradicted by other sources can be given less credibility. But even if a source is less credible at one point, that does not undermine the rest of it. ALL sources contain some mixture of fact and fiction. We have to figure out the factual part.
The Jesus miracles are not contradicted by any other sources from the time. The only argument against them is the dogma that miracles cannot ever happen. We have evidence saying they happened, and no evidence saying they did not happen, other than that general dogma imposing a ban on all possible miracle claims of any time or any place or from any possible source. Science and reason does not impose any such dogma on us to ban all possible miracle claims. Rather, logic requires us to question ALL sources, treating them all with skepticism, and to include ALL the ancient documents as sources to use for determining what happened.
You have not performed any more "analyses" than I have to establish what is factual and what is not. You haven't given any rule other than to arbitrarily discard the NT documents as having no credibility for anything factual, even though today's historians do use these documents to determine the historical facts of the 1st century, in that region.
You can cite your favorite Jesus-debunker-guru and say he's an authority on what is fact and what is not. But that is not a scientific principle for separating fact from fiction. That's just your prejudice and nothing more. Your prejudice, or that of your debunker guru, is not the scientific basis for separating historical fact from fiction.
ALL the documents which have survived from ancient times are sources for determining the historical facts. Each claim in the documents has to be considered, and all questions asked about the claim, such as how it compares to all the other claims, in other documents. If the claim is contradicted in other documents, that makes it less credible. The Jesus miracle acts are not contradicted in any other documents of the time.
You mean cults, plural. You apparently have spent LESS time on it than you pretend, because if you had you would know that there were many Christian cults, not just one.
One point I've made repeatedly about the early Christ-belief cults is that they disagreed with each other, and there were many conflicting groups or cults which rallied around the Jesus of 30 AD. And I've asked why so many divergent factions would all rally around the same figure, considering that they had conflicting beliefs. Why instead wouldn't they each seek out their own separate "messiah" figure so as to not get confused with the other factions?
Best explanation: They all believed this one person did the miracle acts, and so they all wanted to connect to him somehow, make him their great Symbol, claim him as their authority. And why did so many conflicting factions believe this one person had done miracles? Probably because there was so much evidence, so many reports of it, i.e., because it was apparently true.
You have not addressed this point. So, why don't you explain why so many divergent groups all claimed this same Christ, or Jesus of 30 AD, to be the "Messiah" (or "Logos" or "Son of God" etc.)?
I finally answered it:
Despite the divergences, and dissimilar interpretations, all the evidence is that the risen Christ of Paul is the same as the Christ of Mark. There's no contradiction between them, just separate interpretations of the same person in history. And Paul ignores almost everything biographical or historical, while Mark reports (his version of) the history and biographical elements.
I'll keep "pretending" it (and flapping my tongue defiantly) as long as you keep pretending that "miracle-working messiah saviors" similar to Jesus were "all the rage" in that period, even though you can't cite any example from an ancient text which reports their miracle acts.
Then why do you automatically believe him without requiring any ancient written source?
Of course you do. A True Believer is always persuaded by the "arguments" of his/her guru-Prophet-pundit authority figure.
He gives no ancient written source reporting the miracles of any of those "savior messiahs" he keeps listing and which you slurp up from the trough without ever questioning it. To meet the test he has to cite the ancient text, written near the time the events reportedly happened, saying what miracle acts were performed (i.e., reported in the sources as being performed) by these "savior messiahs" in the list you're taking on faith. Like the Mark text I gave earlier, written about 40 years after the reported event. Or Paul reporting the Resurrection about 25 years later. Why can't Carrier give any such evidence reporting the miracles of those "savior messiahs" which were "the rage" back then?
How many more Walls of Text must I post explaining that I want an ancient text source reporting the miracles of those "savior messiahs" on your list? I've asked for this many times, and no one provides any ancient source telling us about those miracles, such as we have for Jesus in the Gospels.
My prophecy is that you will not quote any ancient text reporting the miracle acts of any of the "messiah savior" miracle-workers you claim were "the rage" in those times. Such as I have posted from the 1st-century documents reporting the Jesus miracle acts. But you will continue to post your copy-and-paste excerpts from the sermons of your modern debunker-guru-pundit Richard Carrier, and continue to deny that he is your infallible guru Prophet Source of Truth, while still not ever checking for yourself any ancient literature about the miracle acts performed by the "messiah saviors" on his list, which you just accept on blind faith from your guru which you deny is your guru.
"similar"? You admit then that there is no written evidence for any miracle acts those "messiah saviors" did. By "similar" all you mean is that there were some ancient miracle claims. So all miracles are "similar" to all the others, making the miracles of Jesus "similar" to all other "miracle" claims. And yet the miracles of Jesus are reported in actual written documents near the time they allegedly happened, while no others are. So you admit this DISsimilarity. In this one case we have normal EVIDENCE for the alleged miracle event, while we do not have evidence for any of the others. You're admitting this.
Everyone knows there were millions of myths, not only then, but all through history and everywhere, not just "in that part of the world" at that time. But there is no written record anywhere saying a miracle act was done by those "savior messiahs" such as we have for Jesus in the Gospel accounts reporting events of the 1st century.
There's evidence that many "myths" existed, but no evidence saying anyone performed a miracle act, other than traditions which evolved over many centuries/thousands of years as a result of mythologizing. Like the Santa Claus myth which required 1500 years to evolve.
What you can "establish" is that there are millions/billions of "myths" everywhere, claims that something sensational happened, and much or most of it is fictional. There is no special phenomenon of "miracle-working, flesh-and-blood personal savior myths" peculiar to "that part of the world" as opposed to other parts or other times in history. With the billions of myths everywhere throughout all times and places, you can find whatever symbol you're looking for in this or that place or culture and claim "similarities" here and there, wherever you want to promote someone's latest goofy theory about gods or superstitions and popular mythologies. But you don't disprove anything about the miracles of Jesus in the Gospels by simply running out long laundry lists of myths, even millions of them, no matter where or when your guru claims to have found them.
If your point is that there are other similar cases like Jesus from that historical period, then you have to show the evidence for them, such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts, reported in documents near to the time, such as is required for normal historical events. But instead of giving this evidence, you only keep regurgitating quotes from your modern-day debunker-guru.
You cannot "establish" that there was any other reported miracle-worker for whom we have evidence from the time, in the written record, stating what miracle acts he did (or she or it).
According to your guru-pundit authority. But you can't show one example from any written documents of the time.
What you can claim is that similar terminology or names or symbols were used as they became attached to the Christ belief, or cults, getting connected to this new belief which had to be explained somehow, because this new belief, based on miracle claims for which there was evidence (unlike all the others), had to now be taken into account and identified in terms or symbols already part of the popular thinking or culture. The society does not abandon its earlier symbols, but tries to adapt them to the new reality confronting it.
The Book of Revelation, or Apocalypse, reveals how some early Christians were identifying with pagan symbols already popular, which was condemned by this author. There are also indications of this in Paul's letters. This illustrates how the current popular traditions are so difficult to abandon and instead are incorporated one way or another into the new belief.
"remarkable"?
What matters is that there's no other reported miracle-worker for whom there is evidence. No one is giving any example of one, even though they're saying miracle-workers (or claims about them) were "the rage" and "a dime a dozen" during the time.
That no one can cite any other example shows that there isn't any other example. There's not even anything close. To have 4 (5) sources in less than 100 years after the event is very good evidence for a reported event from those times.
You can say it's not "remarkable" that miracle acts were performed by someone in this one case only (the only case for which there is evidence), but it was reported as "good news" by Mark. Whether it was "remarkable" or not, you have to explain this "good news" term (euangelion), used by Mark and by Paul in the epistles. They must have thought there was something "remarkable" going on to use this term over and over again. Prior to the NT, the term euangelion (or similar terminology in other languages) did not have any significance. So, why did it suddenly take on such significance here? Isn't it obvious that someone at the time thought there was something "remarkable" which had happened here?
He's the only case for whom we have evidence. I.e., the same kind of evidence we have for 99% of our historical record, i.e., written accounts near the time saying the miracle events happened, like for any event one claims happened. There are no other reported "messiah saviors" for which we have such evidence. Whether it's "treated differently" or not, it is a fact that in this case we have evidence, and for all the others there is no evidence.
Why is there such extreme desperation to insist that this is not so, and that we have "evidence" of some kind for many other "savior messiahs" which were "all the rage" and "a dime a dozen" in the ancient world? Yet no one can produce any such evidence.
And evidence does matter in deciding what to believe.
Last edited:
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
All good points Sir Lump.
Here have a +rep
I always wonder why the Bart Ehrman guru pundit types expect us to swallow their claims about the existence of numerous pseudo 'messiah' miracle workers, yet, as you rightly say, the documentary evidence for their deeds is virtually non-existent.
Meanwhile the numerous actual documented claims about the real Messiah apparently count for nothing.
Here have a +rep
I always wonder why the Bart Ehrman guru pundit types expect us to swallow their claims about the existence of numerous pseudo 'messiah' miracle workers, yet, as you rightly say, the documentary evidence for their deeds is virtually non-existent.
Meanwhile the numerous actual documented claims about the real Messiah apparently count for nothing.
Learner
Veteran Member
One from me too. See how well written it is, putting in the effort, addressing each point articulately clearly?
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
We clearly have differing definitions of what “addressing” constitutes.
So you, Lion and Learner (and Lump) all agree then that Mormonism is true. After all, in the case of John Smith we have EVIDENCE from the time.
So you, Lion and Learner (and Lump) all agree then that Mormonism is true. After all, in the case of John Smith we have EVIDENCE from the time.
Learner
Veteran Member
Yes, we believe the evidence of John Smiths existence just as we believe Jesus existed. Did you treat Mormonism with the usual sceptism-method for plagarism from other (biblical) beliefs?
Atheos
Veteran Member
Do you believe the Golden Plates were written in Reformed Egyptian? That Joseph Smith translated them through the power of the Seer's Stone? That God himself directly oversaw the translation process, literally word for word? That because of this the Book of Mormon is the "Most correct book on the earth?" Do you believe the Witness of the Eight? Do you believe that once the Golden Plates had been translated God took them up into Heaven, explaining why we can't take a look at them for ourselves now? Do you believe that Joseph Smith performed miracles of the same magnitude as Jesus?
We have much better "evidence" of all these things than exists about the Jesus mythology, yet historians do not accept these things as actual history any more than they accept Jesus walking on the water as actual history, or George Washington tossing a coin across the Potomac as actual history.
We have much better "evidence" of all these things than exists about the Jesus mythology, yet historians do not accept these things as actual history any more than they accept Jesus walking on the water as actual history, or George Washington tossing a coin across the Potomac as actual history.
Koyaanisqatsi
Veteran Member
Your deliberately disingenuous response speaks volumes.